RESUMEN
This article try to analyze why, although personalistic bioethics is expanding, there are so few theoretical studies on its characteristics and identity, and concludes it is due to a problem of lack of specificity. Personalistic bioethicists rely either on movements or institutions that have a weak theoretical foundation or in the realist philosophy taken in a very broad sense, which generates a problem of internal inconsistency due to its great diversity. To solve this problem the author proposes: 1) be aware of the existence of this theoretical problem; 2) solve it through the use of personalistic philosophy understood as a particular philosophical school of the XX century. In this sense, the author proposes: 1) a detailed description of personalistic philosophy; 2) states that a particular version, the modern ontological personalism, developed from an anthropological point of view by Wojtyla, from a bioethical point of view by Sgreccia and from the theory of personalism by Burgos is the best choice to put the foundations of personalistic bioethics. The author concludes exposing the contributions and limits of this theory for personalistic bioethics, and the steps that should be followed to promote it and develop it.
Asunto(s)
Bioética , Personeidad , FilosofíaRESUMEN
El presente artículo se plantea porqué, a pesar de que la bioética personalista está en expansión, existan tan pocos trabajos teóricos sobre sus características e identidad, y concluye que se debe a un problema de falta de especificidad. Los bioéticos personalistas se apoyan o bien en movimientos o instituciones que tienen una base teórica débil o bien en la filosofía realista tomada en un sentido muy amplio, lo que genera un problema de inconsistencia interna debido a su gran diversidad. Para solventar este problema el autor propone: 1) ser consciente de la existencia de este problema de fundamentación; 2) resolverlo mediante el recurso a la filosofía personalista entendida como escuela filosófica concreta del siglo XX. En este sentido, el autor propone: 1) una descripción detallada de la filosofía personalista y, 2) postula que una versión concreta, el personalismo ontológico moderno, desarrollado desde un punto de vista antropológico por Wojtyla, bioético por Sgreccia y de teoría del personalismo por Burgos es la mejor opción para fundar la bioética personalista. Por último, concluye exponiendo las aportaciones y los límites que esta concreta teoría personalista tiene para la bioética personalista, así como los pasos que deberían seguirse para potenciarla y desarrollarla (AU)
This article try to analyze why, although personalistic bioethics is expanding, there are so few theoretical studies on its characteristics and identity, and concludes it is due to a problem of lack of specificity. Personalistic bioethicists rely either on movements or institutions that have a weak theoretical foundation or in the realist philosophy taken in a very broad sense, which generates a problem of internal inconsistency due to its great diversity. To solve this problem the author proposes: 1) be aware of the existence of this theoretical problem; 2) solve it through the use of personalistic philosophy understood as a particular philosophical school of the XX century. In this sense, the author proposes: 1) a detailed description of personalistic philosophy; 2) states that a particular version, the modern ontological personalism, developed from an anthropological point of view by Wojtyla, from a bioethical point of view by Sgreccia and from the theory of personalism by Burgos is the best choice to put the foundations of personalistic bioethics. The author concludes exposing the contributions and limits of this theory for personalistic bioethics, and the steps that should be followed to promote it and develop it (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Teoría Ética , Bioética , Personeidad , Filosofía , Ética Basada en Principios , AntropologíaRESUMEN
This article analyses the position of two secularized theories on the role of religious beliefs in bioethical reasoning. The excluding laicism of Sádaba rejects the rationality of religious fact and extend a general suspicion about the bioethical reasoning of believer. Contrary, the open position of Habermas-Rawls considers reasonable religions as one of the typical comprehensive views of liberal State, encourage secularized citizens to value his contributions and urge to secular and, then, neutral, State not to impose to all citizens a secularized cosmo-vision. Only the second perspective put the bases for a fruitful and calm dialogue in the bioethical area.
Asunto(s)
Bioética , Filosofía , Religión , Secularismo , Humanos , Principios MoralesRESUMEN
The value of the concept of person in bioethics has been questioned in recent years by authors like Singer, Engelhardt, Harris and others, who water down its ontological consistency by reducing it to mere qualities "in acto" like rationality and self-conscience. Consequently, they limit enormously the subjects to which it can be applied. Embryos, foetuses, children, people in coma, the elderly in terminal phases, among others, could not be considered persons since they are not completely self-conscious beings. In this article, the author analyses the main argumentative scheme used by these authors to support their assertions, discuss its validity, points out the ethical problems that arise, reaffirms the centrality of the concept of person and suggests ways of research which can provide suitable answers to this kind of reasoning.
