552
I. N. Carlotto et al.
necessary to understand, plan and implement holistic actions in the universities
(Carlotto and Dinis 2018c).
Environmental bioethics, in turn, emerges as one of the first arms of bioethical
studies, evidenced by Potter in 1971 in his work “Bioethics: A Bridge to the Future”
(Potter 1971). In this study, Potter sought to address eco-focused bioethics by raising
issues that have implications for human health and the ecosystem, and which cannot
or should not be addressed in isolation (Fiore 2016). Given this paradox, the hypothesis to be verified refers to the interface between bioethical principles with HP and
sustainable development (SD) and SR, justifying the implementation of health action
programs in HEI, from the ecosalutogenic point of view advocated by bioethics.
environmental. Thus, Potter’s “Bridge to the Future” (1971) was conceived with
the genuine intent to reconnect humanity and scientific knowledge with the outside
world and life as an integrated whole (Semplici 2015).
The analogy of bioethics with HP in its different areas, specifically in HEIs,
reaffirms the understanding that to articulate health, HP and bioethics, it is necessary
to reflect on human quality of life, preservation of ecology and biodiversity, finitude
of natural resources, ecosystem balance, concern for sustainability, inclusion, equity,
justice, dignity, among others (Carlotto and Dinis 2017, 2018a; Dooris 2009; Real
de Asúa and Herreros 2016; Sanz 2016).
Siqueira-Batista et al. (2015) argue that bioethics should be considered the ethics
of science that combines humility, responsibility and competence with an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approach and allows the true meaning of humanity to
prevail. In assisting and implementing health practices, bioethics creates bridges
between being and acting, between the institutional and public policy universe,
allowing an interface between rights and duties, in which the scope of SR prevails
as the guiding principle of a society transdisciplinary ethics (Zoboli 2010).
According to Siqueira-Batista et al. (2015), ethical problems arise from factors
such as lack of articulation between intersectoral public policies, poor accessibility
to health services and programs, or social and economic heterogeneities. These
authors also point out that bioethical challenges are evident when tensions are established between technical-scientific and practical knowledge, hindering a reflexive
analysis of the question presented, in all dimensions in which it manifests itself.
Thus, it is possible to conceive that bioethical discussions involving scarce health
resources rarely lead to a critical analysis of current economic structures and policies, hampering HP practices as these reductionist debates become self-limiting and
do not contribute to the reflective practice that characterizes bioethics (Carlotto and
Dinis 2019b).
In order to achieve a broader reflection, it can be inferred that bioethics has
two epistemological streams: an approach with more ecological aspects, as recommended by Potter (1971), and another stream of more clinical aspects, as evidenced
by Hellegers and Ramsey (1973). Thus, it is possible to identify two basic research
paradigms involving the bioethical discipline: a paradigm of hermeneutic and critical
importance that investigates the interpretation of the cultural assumptions of the use
of biotechnologies and the other, more casuistic paradigm, that seeks concrete resolutions for the dilemmas. Both are epistemologically complementary and need each
I. N. Carlotto et al.
necessary to understand, plan and implement holistic actions in the universities
(Carlotto and Dinis 2018c).
Environmental bioethics, in turn, emerges as one of the first arms of bioethical
studies, evidenced by Potter in 1971 in his work “Bioethics: A Bridge to the Future”
(Potter 1971). In this study, Potter sought to address eco-focused bioethics by raising
issues that have implications for human health and the ecosystem, and which cannot
or should not be addressed in isolation (Fiore 2016). Given this paradox, the hypothesis to be verified refers to the interface between bioethical principles with HP and
sustainable development (SD) and SR, justifying the implementation of health action
programs in HEI, from the ecosalutogenic point of view advocated by bioethics.
environmental. Thus, Potter’s “Bridge to the Future” (1971) was conceived with
the genuine intent to reconnect humanity and scientific knowledge with the outside
world and life as an integrated whole (Semplici 2015).
The analogy of bioethics with HP in its different areas, specifically in HEIs,
reaffirms the understanding that to articulate health, HP and bioethics, it is necessary
to reflect on human quality of life, preservation of ecology and biodiversity, finitude
of natural resources, ecosystem balance, concern for sustainability, inclusion, equity,
justice, dignity, among others (Carlotto and Dinis 2017, 2018a; Dooris 2009; Real
de Asúa and Herreros 2016; Sanz 2016).
Siqueira-Batista et al. (2015) argue that bioethics should be considered the ethics
of science that combines humility, responsibility and competence with an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approach and allows the true meaning of humanity to
prevail. In assisting and implementing health practices, bioethics creates bridges
between being and acting, between the institutional and public policy universe,
allowing an interface between rights and duties, in which the scope of SR prevails
as the guiding principle of a society transdisciplinary ethics (Zoboli 2010).
According to Siqueira-Batista et al. (2015), ethical problems arise from factors
such as lack of articulation between intersectoral public policies, poor accessibility
to health services and programs, or social and economic heterogeneities. These
authors also point out that bioethical challenges are evident when tensions are established between technical-scientific and practical knowledge, hindering a reflexive
analysis of the question presented, in all dimensions in which it manifests itself.
Thus, it is possible to conceive that bioethical discussions involving scarce health
resources rarely lead to a critical analysis of current economic structures and policies, hampering HP practices as these reductionist debates become self-limiting and
do not contribute to the reflective practice that characterizes bioethics (Carlotto and
Dinis 2019b).
In order to achieve a broader reflection, it can be inferred that bioethics has
two epistemological streams: an approach with more ecological aspects, as recommended by Potter (1971), and another stream of more clinical aspects, as evidenced
by Hellegers and Ramsey (1973). Thus, it is possible to identify two basic research
paradigms involving the bioethical discipline: a paradigm of hermeneutic and critical
importance that investigates the interpretation of the cultural assumptions of the use
of biotechnologies and the other, more casuistic paradigm, that seeks concrete resolutions for the dilemmas. Both are epistemologically complementary and need each