Bioethics in a transformation society on the example of the legal regulation

Literature review




human rights, bioethics, transformational society


The article is devoted to bioethical problems that exist in a transformational society. The most important issues are considered, including organ and tissue transplantation, use of embryonic and stem cells for the treatment, gene therapy, in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc. It is emphasized that along with scientific progress there are deep transformations connected with this process in the socio-psychological and cultural spheres, the reason for which is the penetration into mass culture and the mentality of new ideas, conceptions and terms.
Emphasis was placed on the need to create a DNA database of servicemen, which is especially relevant during the wartime in Ukraine. Attention is drawn to the need to create special legislation for quality legal regulation of surrogacy, which is especially relevant today.
The problems of biomedical transformations and their conflict became the subject of consideration by scientists. Recent studies are devoted to a number of issues related to updating the understanding of the determinants of bioethics in various directions. First of all, attention should be paid to the genesis of the basic standards of bioethics. T. Beauchamp and J. Childress in many editions and reprints have transformed the understanding of the problem over forty years, and it is now agreed that it should be considered within four broad moral principles: respect for autonomy, benevolence, and justice. They can and should be seen as arising historically and philosophically from general morality, as universal morality (as opposed to pure relativism or pluralism) gradually became an integral part of the principled approach.
Taking into account all the latest trends in the field of biomedicine, the purpose of this article is to address the problem of the development of biomedical legal standards in Ukraine and the issues of combining them with national identity in the current conditions of the pandemic crisis. The relevance of this topic is important for several reasons: it can serve as a basis for a comparative analysis of the practical application of biomedical legal standards; the example of Ukraine is valuable as an experimental benchmark of the legal policy of the states of the former USSR for the analysis of the development of the post-Soviet socio-legal and cultural sphere; will make it possible to interpret identity in the context of globalized changes.

Author Biographies

M.M. Blikhar, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Administrative and Informational Law

I.M. Zharovska, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Theory of Law and Сonstitutionalism

N.V. Ortynska, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Theory, History and Philosophy of the Law

I.I. Komarnytska, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, associate professor, Department of Civil Law and Procedure

R.M. Matkivska, O.O. Bogomolets National Medical University Ukraine, Kyiv

PhD, associate professor, Department of Descriptive and Clinical Anatomy


  1. Bali, J., Garg, R., Bali, R.T. “Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and biomedical research: Why a strong computational/AI bioethics framework is required?” Indian J Ophthalmol 67.1 (2019). DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1292_18
  2. Barugahare, J. “African bioethics: methodological doubts and insights.” BMC Med Ethics 19.1 (2018): 98. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0338-6
  3. Beauchamp, T.L, Childress, J.F. “Response to Commentaries.” J Med Philos 45 (2020): 560–79. DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhaa011
  4. Beauchamp, T., Childress, J. “Principles of Biomedical Ethics: Marking Its Fortieth Anniversary.” Am J Bioeth 19 (2019). DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1665402
  5. Blumenthal-Barby, J.S., Burroughs, H. “Seeking Better Health Care Outcomes: The Ethics of Using the “Nudge”.” Am J Bioeth 12.2. (2012): 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2011.634481
  6. Cañada, J.A., Sariola, S., Butcher, A. “In critique of anthropocentrism: a more-than-human ethical framework for antimicrobial resistance.” Medical Humanities 48 (2022): e16. DOI: 10.1136/medhum-2021-012309
  7. Council of Europe. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine Oviedo, 4.04.1997. Available from: [].
  8. Cortés-Capano, G., Hausmann, A., Di Minin, E., Kortetmäki, T. “Ethics in biodiversity conservation: The meaning and importance of pluralism.” Biological Conservation 275 (2022): 109759. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109759
  9. Ten Have, H. “The challenges of global bioethics.” Glob Bioeth 33.1 (2022): 41–4. DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2021.2011008
  10. Eberl, J.T. “Can Prudence Be Enhanced?” J Med Philos 43.5 (2018): 506–26. DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhy021
  11. García Gómez, A. “Fostering the art of convergence in global bioethics.” Int J Ethics Education (2021): 195–20. DOI: 10.1007/s40889-020-00117-9
  12. Gilbert, B. “The problem of anthropocentrism and the human kind of personhood.” Philosophy & Social Criticism (2022). DOI: 10.1177/01914537221110900
  13. Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., Piccolo, J. “Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem.” J Agricultural Environmental Ethics 31 (2018). DOI: 10.1007/s10806-018-9711-1
  14. Lyreskog, D.M., Pavarini, G., Lorimer, J., et al. “How to build a game for empirical bioethics research: The case of “Tracing Tomorrow”.” Health Expect 25.1 (2022): 304–12. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13380
  15. Macpherson, C. “Global bioethics: it’s past and future.” Glob Bioeth 33.1 (2022) 45–9. DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2021.2011009
  16. Macklin, R. “A new definition for global bioethics: COVID-19, a case study.” Glob Bioeth 33.1 (2022): 4–13. DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2021.2011001
  17. Macpherson, I., Roqué, M.V., Segarra, I. “Moral dilemmas involving anthropological and ethical dimensions in healthcare curriculum.” Nursing Ethics 27.5 (2020): 1238–49. DOI: 10.1177/0969733020914382
  18. Ukrainska Pravda. Almost fifty babies born to foreigners are staying in a hotel in Kyiv (2020). Available from: [].
  19. Malm, H., May, Th., Leslie, P.F., et al. “Ethics, Pandemics, and the Duty to Treat.” Am J Bioeth 8.8 (2008): 4–19. DOI: 10.1080/15265160802317974
  20. Flear, M.L. “Expectations as techniques of legitimation? Imagined futures through global bioethics standards for health research.” J Law Biosci 8.2 (2021): 086. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa086
  21. Marshall, P., Koenig, B. “Accounting for Culture in a Globalized Bioethics.” J Law Med Ethics 32.2 (2004): 252–66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2004.tb00472.x
  22. McGuire, A.L., Aulisio, M.P., Davis, F.D., et al. “Ethical Challenges Arising in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force.” Am J Bioeth 20.7 (2020). DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1764138
  23. Murdy, W.H. “Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version.” Science 187 (2023): 1168–72. DOI: 10.1126/science.187.4182.1168
  24. Nortjé, N., Jones-Bonofiglio, K., Sotomayor, C.R. “Exploring values among three cultures from a global bioethics perspective.” Glob Bioeth 32.1 (2021): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2021.1879462
  25. Pavarini, G., McMillan, R., Robinson, A., Singh, I. “Design Bioethics: A Theoretical Framework and Argument for Innovation in Bioethics Research.” Am J Bioeth 21.6 (2021): 37–50. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1863508
  26. Pavlo VI. Humanae vitae. Entsyklika (1968). Available from: [].
  27. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine № 169-IX from 03.10.2019 “On the rejection of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Strengthening Liability for Crimes Committed to a Minor, a Minor, or a Person Who Has Not Reached Sexual Maturity”. Available from: [].
  28. Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Resolution from 15.02.2006 № 144 “On the implementation of Article 281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine”. Available from: [п#Text].
  29. Supreme Court of Ukraine. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine № 1 from 27.02.2009 “On judicial practice in cases of protection of the dignity and honor of an individual, as well as the business reputation of an individual and a legal entity”. Available from: [].
  30. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Law of Ukraine “About the prohibition of human reproductive cloning” № 2231-IV from 14.12.2004. Available from: [].
  31. Rudenko, S.A., Andrushchenko, T.A., Gogayeva, O.K., Kashchenko, Y.V. “Bioethical Aspects in Modern Cardiosurgery of Coronary Artery Disease.” Ukrainian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 4.45 (2021): 99–103. DOI: 10.30702/ujcvs/21.4512/RA062-99103
  32. Ruiz, C.B., Maciel, J.C. “A ética do cuidado do outro e a bioética ambiental.” Revista Bioética 28.3 (2020). DOI: 10.1590/1983-80422020283405
  33. The Civil Code of Ukraine. Law from 16.01.2003 № 435-IV. Available from: [].
  34. Engelhardt, H.T. “Sin and Bioethics: Why a Liturgical Anthropology is Foundational.” Christian Bioethics 11.2 (2005): 221–39. DOI: 10.1080/13803600500203905
  35. Salloch, S., Ursin, F. “The birth of the “digital turn” in bioethics?” Bioethics (2022). DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13099
  36. Schneider, M. “A Platform to Develop and Apply Digital Methods for Empirical Bioethics Research: Mixed Methods Design and Development Study.” JMIR 6.5 (2022): e28558. DOI: 10.2196/28558
  37. Semashko, T.F. “Ethnic stereotypes and their role in intercultural communication.” International journal of philology 11.3 (2020): 27–32.
  38. Severinova, O.B. “Peculiarities of the state policy in the field of information in the conditions of the european integration of Ukraine.” Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 55.2 (2019): 59–61.
  39. Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The social concept. Available from: [].
  40. Kearsley, S. “Anthropological Perspectives in Bio-Ethics.” International Encyclopedia of Public Health (2008): 184–93. DOI: 10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00140-4
  41. UNESCO. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights was adopted unanimously and by acclamation at UNESCO’s 29th General Conference on 11 November 1997. The following year, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the Declaration. Available from: [].
  42. Informator. Ukrainians for chemical castration of pedophiles, survey. Available from: [].
  43. Varkey, B. “Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice.” Medical Principles and Practice 30 (2021): 17–28. DOI: 10.1159/000509119
  44. Wolf-Meyer, M. “Multibiologism: An anthropological and bioethical framework for moving beyond medicalization.” Bioethics 34.2 (2020): 183–9. DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12658
  45. Zharovska, I., Blikhar, M., Matkivska, R., Cherkasova, L. “Protection of reproductive health: international and national experience.” Reproductive Endocrinology 66 (2022): 109–17. DOI: 10.18370/2309-4117.2022.66.109-117
  46. Shchyrba, M.Y. Legal status of the patients: theoretically legal investigation. Qualifying scientific work presented as a manuscript. Lviv (2020): 519 p.




How to Cite

Blikhar, M., Zharovska, I., Ortynska, N., Komarnytska, I., & Matkivska, R. (2023). Bioethics in a transformation society on the example of the legal regulation: Literature review. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (67), 115–120.



Health care