According to Francis Abel, “Bioethics consists of the interdisciplinary study of problems arising as a result of biological and medical advances both with respect to society as a whole and to their impact on society and on its present and future ethical values”. Therefore, when we talk about Bioethics we are not simply referring to the problems and dilemmas that are faced by the medical field as a result of today’s technological boom, but we are also referring to the social problems affecting citizens who live within a society where borders are increasingly fading, so much so that our planet, as a result of globalisation, is changing into a “great village”, to quote Toffler.
The benefits deriving from the exceptional technological and scientific progress which we are currently experiencing are not equally distributed among the inhabitants of this ‘village’, but, quite the opposite, it is the minority who lives in the so called “First World” that enjoys these, whereas the majority (two thirds of the population) continues to be sunk in a world which is underdeveloped and full of needs and where the life expectance of its inhabitants (of those who survive birth and the first years of life) is almost half of that enjoyed by those who live in the first world. The major problems which need to be dealt with in this multicultural society are: whether there is only one Bioethical system or several different ones and, when talking about Bioethics in connection with social problems, how to avoid being mistaken for a politician or party activist.
There is a wide range of situations of a social nature that initially seemed to be only marginally related to Bioethics, but which today represent the hard core of bioethical concerns, themes that are mentioned in the political analyses conducted by Giovanni Berlinguer (Daily Bioethics) and Volnei Garrafa (strong Bioethics). We feel that these analyses are very topical, especially in Latin America, where the priorities governing bioethical analysis differ from those prevailing in Europe and in the United States. I do not believe that we should refer to different Bioethical systems, but only to one Bioethics displaying different priorities, depending on the place in which we are to live, and which calls for parallel solutions.
Morality and ethics are separate ways of dealing with human action and involve values related to what we deem right or wrong. The former tells us what we ought to do, the latter says what may be done. The core of the Latin American issues involves the social aspect, especially for the problems relating to the possibility of respecting and giving concrete form to human rights which are universally acknowledged, ensuring that social attainments are not mere declamatory propositions in the politicians’ agendas, restricted to election campaigns.
The problems which our committees are chiefly addressed with are:
· Problems arising from the allocation and distribution of means relating to health and education.
· Judiciary defence means when faced with a request for tubal ligation, or for abortion when the foetus is severely ill or not directly vital, such as in the case of anencephaly, lack of sex education, inadequate information as to reproductive health, etc.
· Problems arising from unemployment (in Argentina we have an 18% unemployment rate and an equal underemployment rate). · Family break-up, as a result of the householder loosing his job within a society with a patriarchal background. This type of situation is the most frequent cause for the arousal of violence within the family, owing to the lack of jobs and to the number of people doing illegal work with no social or insurance coverage.
· Bribery in the distribution of social aids, which reveals itself with non-delivery of food products that are often forwarded through the so-called ONGs (Non-Governmental Organisations), which often are of a factious nature and are aimed at political patronage.
· Increased attention requested within the hospital sector, for people who used to belong to the middle classes and who shortly later, as a result of unemployment, have fallen into disgrace and neither have social coverage nor the possibility of obtaining the necessary treatments; this leads to the overcrowding of hospitals and to their having to rely upon the heroism of health staff members who, besides being exposed to negative judgements (such as in the case of hospital infections developed because of institutional deficiencies), often work “ad-honorem”.
As part of the speech he made during the International Bioethics Days, held in Buenos Aires a few years ago, Lain Entralgo stated that Bioethics, by requesting justice and equity, had become an “exposé” of reality so full of unfairness and inequity. The issues exposed by Bioethics are not the subject of a denunciation as such, but emerge as “absence” in the daily projection of Bioethics that both Berlinguer and Garrafa refer to.
Over the last years, Argentina has “latinised”, since it is suffering from the problems associated with the loss of its middle-class; furthermore, being a country with specific features, it does not have an adequate development project for the implementation of its social programmes and plans and, when it adopts programmes and plans from International Organisations, it does not make an effective use of them, owing to the corruption or to the indifference and ineffectiveness of the government authorities and politicians, who, having been democratically elected, do not meet their obligation to “govern for the common good” (either because of their personal selfishness, or as a sudden turnabout during the discharge of their public duties).
When referring to such issues, we need to draw a distinction between political action and bioethical action. Bioethical action, viewed as social projection, that is as a movement aimed at ensuring that individuals internalise a propensity to critically analyse scientific and technological innovations and their possible applications, as well as ethical behaviours ruled by common responsibilities, stimulates Political action (“Political” with a capital “P”, not related to vulgar politics). This is achieved by circulating information and promoting the dignity of human life, as well as respect for life in general, for the balance of the ecosystem, for the plurality of values, for justice and equality in allocating and distributing resources. However, this action is brought about by its bioethical purpose (interdisciplinary analysis of bioethical questions). On the other hand, Politics is aimed at human participation in the quest for common good, by devising strategies, plans and programmes to achieve this objective. Bioethics and Politics are complementary.
Rulers plan and implement actions aimed at the consolidation of the common good, the growth of their countries, the improvement of health and education and the protection of their citizens’ safety; actions aimed at making a honest effort to achieve as much as possible in an interdependent, globalised and mercantilist manner, and not at merely producing electoral slogans, which are subsequently forgotten once in power. Bioethics may provide its contribution to public powers, just as the Parliament and the Judicial Branch, through its Committees and its Commissions, as long as these are consulted before issuing judgements or drawing up laws which are related to bioethical issues, thus contributing to moulding a society which is more just and fair, based on a jointly responsible ethical system.
Bioethics has a major role to play within the field of education, both in coaching human resources in Bioethics, and in informing and reflecting on scientific and technological innovations, their risks and benefits from a community point of view, thus becoming a movement, a motivating factor in order to have informed citizens, who may effectively participate, through their representatives, to the achievement of the objectives set. In this regard, it should be stressed that the media (whether written, verbal or television) have an enormous responsibility in providing truthful information, whilst avoiding sensationalism and false expectations of technological and scientific benefits by people/groups of people affected by various pathologies. This is the challenge that lies ahead at the moment and Bioethics, by projecting its academic hierarchies within society, can provide assistance in coping with it. I feel that education is the only means of transformation that may assist us in moulding a society that is more just, based on respect and compliance with moral values. Indeed, if we continue with this crazy race for profit, whereby everything is labelled according to its material value, the day will come when there is nothing left for anybody, not even for the most powerful. Bioethics may help us discover the raison d’être for our existence, the meaning of our life, in order for us to find, through a reasonable and rational approach, a consensus, or at least a well-founded agreement, deriving from a united and responsible ethical system, and in order for man to become ever more human based on being and not on having. In fact, this could turn out to be the point of confluence whereby reason and faith may meet.

Giusto Zanier
Joint- Honorary President
of the Argentinian Association
of Bioethics