Images of bioethics: The problem of defining the plural
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2025-2-194-218
The article discusses one of the problems of teaching bioethics to Russian-speaking students, since in Russian the word “bioethics” does not have a plural from, which creates the illusion of some single correct one. Therefore, the multiple essence of bioethics remains a metaphor. The introductory part of the article emphasizes other aspects of plurality associated with the essence of bioethics (interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary field of study, social institution, revision of the history of its origin). In addition, the article associates the plurality of bioethics with expanding its subject area. In one of these expansions – in pedagogical bioethics – one of the tasks is formulated: semiotic protection of the life goals of individuality (I. Melik-Gaikazyan). This type of protection ensures, firstly, the appropriateness of considering bioethics in this journal; secondly, it dictates the need to take into account the changing sociocultural context of perception of the meanings of “protection”, “life goals”, “individuality”; thirdly, it substantiates the relevance of semiotics (and visual semiotics) for the methodology of combining different research approaches in the humanities: historical, holistic and activity-based. The authors of the article, based on their many years of experience teaching the discipline Bioethics to medical university students, note the differences in the perception of the listed meanings. These differences are associated not only with the change in the sociocultural context but also with the course in the curriculum where bioethics is taught and the differences in the future specialties of students (future doctors or future health care organizers). All this makes it difficult to choose and select material for a lecture on the topic “Bioethics: Its Status and Principles”. The article proposes a survey of students preceding the lecture so that the lecturer can know precisely where to start the introductory lecture, which options for the received answers need to be supported and developed, and which options for answers require counterarguments. The authors argue that two questions are enough for the survey: What is bioethics? Who does a voluntary informed consent primarily protect? The article presents the results of surveys of first-year students and postgraduates. It is concluded that the substantiation of the interrelation of these two issues is included in the content of the introductory lecture. This conclusion defines the “starting conditions” for the entire course since it allows for selecting educational material to illustrate the entire spectrum of interpretations, the range of interpretations, and the amplitude of applications. A fragment of the lecture is given, the content of which includes a comparison of views (F. Yahr and V.R. Potter) on the genesis of bioethics, designation of differences in interpretations of bioethics (V.R. Potter and A. Hellegers), schematization of the reasons for the emergence of bioethics (the need to conduct experiments and their ethical consequences, progress in medical sciences and new biomedical technologies, changes in the doctor–patient relationship). A discussion of modern metaphors included in the discourse of bioethics that can be effectively used in the lecture is given. An analysis of the “myths” about the genesis of bioethics is given. The article presents the grounds for distinguishing between bioethics and those areas of applied ethics with which bioethics is often identified. Examples of its extensions demonstrate the multiplicity of bioethics (urban bioethics, pedagogical bioethics, political bioethics, space bioethics, business bioethics, and ethnic bioethics). The authors’ research on identifying the types of bioethics and defining their bases and functions became the basis for developing the structure of the lecture. This overcomes the difficulty of choosing definitions for such a multifaceted phenomenon, existing in the plural, as bioethics. A semiotic analysis of the means of expressing bioethics (metaphors and definitions) allowed the authors to choose two definitions of bioethics and select the most striking metaphors.
Keywords: semiotics of bioethics, metaphors of bioethics, definitions of bioethics, humanitarian education of future doctors
References:
Agich, G. J. (2008). Clinical ethics. Medicina, 44(2), 111–116.
Bærøe, K. (2024). Translational bioethics: Reflections on what it can be and how it should work. Bioethics, 38(3), 187–195.
Blumenthal-Barby, J. et al. (2022). The place of philosophy in bioethics today. The American Journal of Bioethics, 22(12), 10–21.
Dougherty, R. J., & Fins, J. J. (2024). Toward a social bioethics through interpretivism: A framework for healthcare ethics // Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2024. Vol. 33 (1). Р. 6–16.
Drane, J. F. (2002). What is bioethics? A history. In F. Losas, & L. Agar (Eds.), Interfaces Between bioethics and the empirical social sciences (pp. 15–32). Pan American Health Organization; World Health Organization
Evans, J. H. (2023). Translational bioethics and public input. Ethics & Human Research, 45(4), 35–39.
Frank, A. W. (2000). Social bioethics and the critique of autonomy. Health, 4(3), 378–394.
Gaines, A. D., & Juengst, E. T. (2008). Origin myths in bioethics: Constructing sources, motives and reason in bioethic(s). Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 32, 303–327.
Gorbuleva, M. S., & Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (2024). Visualization of the specificity of the philosophical worldview: Detection of semiotic optimum in the selection of illustrative material for an open lecture. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ (Praxema). Journal of Visual Semiotics, 1, 143–166. https://doi.org.10.23951/2312-7899-2024-1-143-166 (In Russian).
Gorbuleva, M. S., Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., & Meshcheryakova, T. V. (2013). Sword and scalpel: semiotic diagnostics of the transformation of power relations as cultural determinations of the basic principles of bioethics. Tomsk State Pedagogical University. (In Russian).
Gorbuleva, M. S., Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., & Pervushina, N. A. (2020). Initiatives of pedagogical bioethics. Higher Education in Russia, 6, 122–128.
Gregg, B. (2022). Political bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 47(4), 516–529.
Hubenko, H. (2020). Urban bioethics – The architect of a healthy city. Jahr: Europski Časopis za Bioetiku, 11(1), 171–188.
Irving, D. N. (2002). What is “bioethics”? (Quid est ’Bioethics’?). In Life and learning X: Proceedings of the tenth university faculty for life conference (pp. 1–84). University Faculty for Life.
Jonsen, A. R. (2001). Social responsibilities of bioethics. Journal of Urban Health, 78, 21–28.
Kendal, E. S. (2022). Focus: Bioethics: Form, function, perception, and reception: Visual bioethics and the artificial womb. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 95(3), 371–377.
Kremling, A., Schildmann, J., & Mertz, M. (2024). From book to bedside? A critical perspective on the debate about “translational bioethics”. Bioethics, 38(3), 177–186.
Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (2014). Metaphors of bioethics as a premonition of a humanitarian revolution. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 4(28), 178–186. (In Russian).
Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., & Meshcheryakova, T. V. (2017). An old metaphor as a problem of bioethics. In E. G. Grebenshchikova, & B. G. Yudin (Eds.), Bioethics and biotechnology: the limits of human improvement / collection of scientific articles: for the 70th anniversary of Pavel Dmitrievich Tishchenko (pp. 157–167). Moscow University for the Humanities. (In Russian).
Muaygil, R. A. (2020). Demystifying bioethics: The past, present, and future of a flourishing discipline. Journal of Nature and Science of Medicine, 3(4), 334–343.
Pavarini, G. et al. (2021). Design bioethics: A theoretical framework and argument for innovation in bioethics research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(6), 37–50.
Porter, A. (2020). Bioethics in the ruins. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 45(3), 259–276.
Rothstein, M. A. (2023). Translational bioethics and health privacy. Ethics & Human Research, 45(3), 40–44.
Sedova, N. N. (2014). The role of bioethics in the preservation of ethnic groups. Bioetika, 2, 6–9. (In Russian).
Siluyanova, I. V., & Pishchikova, L. E. (2020). Bioethics: Definition and types. Bioetika, 1(25), 9–16. (In Russian).
Szocik, K. (2021). Space bioethics: Why we need it and why it should be a feminist space bioethics. Bioethics, 35(2), 187–191.
Tishchenko, P. D. (2008). On the multiplicity of moral positions in bioethics. Chelovek, 1, 82–91. (In Russian).
Tishchenko, P. D. (2010). Bioethics as a form of socially distributed knowledge production. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, 2, 71–78. (In Russian).
Tsyrdya, T. N. (2012). Status, subject, and problem field of social bioethics: methodological analysis. Bioetika, 1, 5–10. (In Russian).
Turner, L. (2005). Bioethics, social class, and the sociological imagination. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14(4), 374–378.
Volkov, L. V. (2021). Business bioethics as a new management concept. Finansovye rynki i banki, 5, 4–9. (In Russian).
Yudin, B. G. (1992). Social institutionalization of bioethics. In Bioethics: problems and prospects (pp. 112–123). Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).
( 449.41 kB ) 
( 428.73 kB )
Issue: 2, 2025
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: OPEN LECTURE
Pages: 194 — 218
Downloads: 17