OPENING CONFERENCE
DEFENSE OF A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR ANIMAL RESEARCH ETHICS
PhD David DeGrazia (George Washington University, EUA)
In this talk Prof. David DeGrazia will defend a new framework for animal research ethics, one that improves upon the "3 Rs" approach that has dominated this area for more than half a century. After explaining why now is a good time for a new framework, and offering a strategy for overcoming very different views about animals' moral status and their use in research, he will present and defend a framework consisting of three principles of social benefit and three principles of animal welfare. He will then contrast this approach with the 3 Rs and clarify that it is offered in a pragmatic spirit of "nonideal theory." The talk will close with advantages of the new framework and concluding reflections.
BIOETHICS, AI, TECHNOSCIENCE AND MEDIA
ETHICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Prof. Dr. João Cortese (USP/FJLES)
Recent developments in AI raise a series of ethical questions, including problems related to explainability, accountability and discriminatory biases. Such phenomena have ethical impacts on several areas of AI application, and it is important to discuss under which theoretical bases fruitful reflections can be presented for the responsible development of AI. In this speech, I will present an overview of the discussion on the field of AI ethics, placing emphasis on the problem of explainability.
THE VALE CONTROVERSY: MEDIA, ARGUMENTS AND ETHICS
Prof. Dr. João Adalberto Campato Jr (UB/GPEB)
This presentation plans to address the controversy sparked by the collapse of the Brumadinho dam, in Minas Gerais, in 2019, in order to reflect on the rhetorical-argumentative media strategies that Vale SA employed in order to try to convey to public opinion an ethical image of company.
BIOETHICS AND EDUCATION
THE TEACHING OF BIOETHICS IN PROMOTING MORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SKILLS
Prof. Dr. Aluísio Seródio (EPM-UNIFESP)
Bioethics, especially in its educational scope, can be seen as a means to promote skills related to ethics and democracy. In this sense, the pedagogical effort must reach the affective and cognitive aspects of moral behavior with two main goals: 1) promote the ability to make moral judgments and act in accordance with such judgments; and 2) promote expression and listening skills as a means of dealing with practical problems (ethical, moral and political) of contemporary pluralistic societies. Any Bioethics that is not also an educational act is doomed to lose much of its meaning. What is proposed is an educational turn in Bioethics, in the sense of forging an educational toolbox composed of intervention and evaluation instruments.
DISCUSSION OF MORAL DILEMMA – TOOL FOR BUILDING MORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SKILLS
Prof. Dr. Patricia Bataglia (UNESP)
Given that Bioethics plays a fundamental role in the training of health professionals, we will discuss here the role of discussions of dilemmas in various formats with the aim of achieving this end. Dilemmas are understood here as difficult-to-solve problems in which the main character has to make a decision under time pressure, without one course of action being necessarily the correct one in contrast to another “wrong” course. Dilemma discussions have their origin, in the theoretical perspective embraced here, the cognitive-developmentalist one, in Lawrence Kohlberg. We will discuss several different strategies for using this very interesting tool to build essential skills for the work of health professionals.
CONFERÊNCIA
DIGITALIZATION, DYSTOPIA AND NEW SUBJECTIVITIES
ELEMENTS FOR A RECONFIGURATION OF BIOETHICS.
Eduardo Díaz Amado (Pontifical Javeriana University, Colombia)
One of the topics that generates the most interest and debate these days in bioethics is that of artificial intelligence, which we could see as the latest expression of a process that began decades ago and that we could call the digitalization of the world. This process has awakened hopes and fears, hopes and anguish. This is a panorama that has been approached from various angles. As far as bioethics is concerned, what can we say? If bioethics emerged in the mid-20th century as a defense of the value of life in all its forms and as a proposal for interdisciplinary dialogue to face the ethical challenges of progress in the life sciences, what is its role today? The growing digitalization of the world, the advance of transhumanist proposals and the subjugation of artificial intelligence represent a crisis that we are only beginning to understand and to which multiple responses are emerging. In this presentation I propose to offer a reading of what this crisis can mean and what elements to analyze, beyond the traditional bioethics approach of addressing the ethical aspects of specific technologies and situations. For this I will assume an approach that I would call “critical bioethics”, which involves various perspectives such as biopolitics, dystopian literature and new developments in humanism/posthumanism, among others.
BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
BIOETHICS OF HEALTH CARE: NEW METHOD OF ETHICAL DELIBERATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Prof. Dr. Aline Albuquerque (UnB)
This lecture aims to present the theoretical framework of Health Care Bioethics through the development of two assumptions to be adopted in ethical deliberation: (a) the distinction between moral controversy and moral problem; (b) the primacy of patient care in ethical deliberation. The aim is to present Health Care Bioethics, as an aspect of Clinical Bioethics, based on the Patient Revolution and its theoretical developments, in order to provide professionals, researchers, patients, family members and caregivers with theoretical constructs that can help them to think about moral issues emerge from clinical practice and deliberate ethically, always in line with the maintenance of firm moral commitments, which consist of moral progress for humanity, and the reaffirmation of what health care is.
DENIALISM IN THE AREA OF HEALTH, MISTANASIA AND VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIMES OF PANDEMIC IN BRAZIL
Prof. Dr. Valdir Paixão Jr (UNESP)
Denialism emerges and intensifies in Brazil with the misfortune of the Covid-19 pandemic. Denial as non-recognition of facts and consequent inertia of action and decision-making in resolving problems arising from the pandemic. Denial as non-acceptance of scientists' work, based on the data presented and the evidence demonstrated. Denial as the dissemination of (mis)information, which generated uncertainty, fear and confusion among the population. The denialist ideology adhered to by politicians, religious people and a fraction of the population promoted and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Brazilians, who were left at the mercy of the neglect and omission of public authorities, slow decision-making and misappropriation of public resources that should be intended for health, thus promoting misthanasia and the violation of Human Rights in our country.
THEORETICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION OF BIOETHICS
NIILISM AND BIOTECHNOLOGY: HANS JONAS’ CRITICISM OF THE ONTOLOGY OF “NOT BEING YET” AND THE HUMAN BEING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Prof. Dr. Jelson Oliveira (PUCPR)
This lecture aims to present the theoretical framework of Health Care Bioethics through the development of two assumptions to be adopted in ethical deliberation: (a) the distinction between moral controversy and moral problem; (b) the primacy of patient care in ethical deliberation. The aim is to present Health Care Bioethics, as an aspect of Clinical Bioethics, based on the Patient Revolution and its theoretical developments, in order to provide professionals, researchers, patients, family members and caregivers with theoretical constructs that can help them to think about moral issues emerge from clinical practice and deliberate ethically, always in line with the maintenance of firm moral commitments, which consist of moral progress for humanity, and the reaffirmation of what health care is.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF MEDICINE TO THE ANALYSIS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN STATE GOVERNANCE AND MEDICAL GOVERNANCE AND THEIR BIOETHICAL CONSEQUENCES: A CASE STUDY FROM BRAZIL
Prof. Dr. Cláudio Lorenzo (UnB)
Recently in Brazil, in a context of ultra-liberal and authoritarian political governance that acted during the biggest health crisis in history, represented by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Federal Council of Medicine, the central body for medical self-regulation, assumed a stance of scientific denialism in relation to permitting the use of medications proven to be ineffective and risk-increasing. This stance constituted the most important support for the government's actions in promoting the widespread use of these medicines, and was justified by the principled defense of clinical autonomy. From this case, we intend to develop a reflection based on classic studies in the Sociology of Medicine, on the epistemic assumption of all forms of medical autonomy, the historical ties between state governance and medical governance, and the bioethical consequences of professional self-regulation in health.
CONFERENCE
TRANSLATIONAL BIOETHICS: REFLECTIONS ON WHAT IT CAN BE AND HOW IT SHOULD WORK
PhD Kristine Bærøe (University of Oslo, Norway)
In 2010, Alan Cribb published a paper called ‘Translational Ethics? The Theory–Practice Gap in Medical Ethics’ in Journal of Medical Ethics. As a philosopher interacting with the field of healthcare practice, Cribb identified a gap between philosophical approaches to defensible ethical conclusions, on the one side, and real-world practices of arriving at defensible practical ethics in the professional field on the other. A crucial question is how the relation between these different ways of should ‘doing ethics’ be understood. Cribb raised the question – somewhat playfully – of whether we could think about the relationship between theory and practice in medical ethics on the same terms as translational medicine. Could a constructive approach involve perceiving scholarly desk work as something that can translate into practice, similar to translational medicine conveying results from lab experiments across different phases and into effective bedside interventions?
In this presentation, I will share my view on what Translational Bioethics can be, and how it should work. I will discuss the strongest critique that has so far been launched against this proposed way of approaching ethics concerning real-world lives and experiences of people, academically. And finally, I will propose concrete premises for a Translational Bioethics method.
BIOÉTICA E AMBIENTE
ETHICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Profa. Dra. Rosana Louro Ferreira Silva (IB-USP)
In our presentation we will present concepts of environmental education, justifying our choice from a critical perspective and indicating that EA must structure pedagogical paths that promote a science engaged with social and cultural transformations, with pedagogical practices that articulate concepts, ethical values and forms of participation. Results of research developed by the Research Group on Environmental Education and Educator Training - GPEAFE will be presented, which articulate sustainability themes with issues of social justice and interculturality.
AGENDA 2030: ETHICS AND ANCESTRALITY
Prof. Dr. Paulo Henrique Martinez (UNESP)
The recommendation of international solidarity has marked action plans for sustainable development, between 1992 and 2015, drawn up on a global scale. It is about knowing tensions and potentialities in its implementation, taking into account the challenge of the ancestral perspective.
CONFERÊNCIA DE ENCERRAMENTO
DEMOCRACY BETWEEN ETHICS AND BIOPOLITICS
Jean Pierre Chauvin (ECA-USP)
In this speech, we propose to reconstitute three conceptions of ethics, going through the treatises of Aristotle (Nicômanian Ethics), Baruch Espinoza (Ethics) and John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism), with a view to distinguishing them from the common use of Moralism , which came into force in the 1950s. Taking into account the birth of Modern Economic Science and Biopolitics during the 18th century (as shown by Michel Foucault), it is assumed that contemporary Representative Democracy has been permeated by a simplistic, pragmatic and controversial rationality, guided by one-dimensional conceptions (as Herbert Marcuse suggested), catalyzed by the fragmentation of knowledge, if not by the mere unreflective (re)production of fallacies, disseminated instantly in cyberspace. These and other procedures have repercussions in various ways on language in general, whether through the semantic inversion of concepts; or by banning agendas that represent any obstacle to the exclusivist and exclusionary program of hyperindividuals (in Gilles Lipovetsky's terms).