Diagnosis of bioethics models

Bioethics aims to assess all the risks, consequences and conditions of the implementation of specific procedures from the position of any subject of biomedical manipulations. Therefore, firstly, the interpretation of the basic principles and rules of bioethics is given depending on the role of the doctor/researcher and a patient/research participant which the subject chooses, and, secondly, making such an interpretation is possible only at the level of the development of models of morally acceptable communications of biomedicine subjects. The indicated consequences enable us to formulate the assertion: bioethics exists in models and produces models. Since it is the communications and role of bio-medical subjects that bioethics models regulate, a conclusion about the semiotic nature of these models has been made. The juxtaposition of respectable classifications of bioethics models (Emanuel E. & Emanuel L.), classical ethical systems and their axiological interpretations (R. Apressyan) makes it possible to determine the limits of applicability of bioethics models. The characteristic of these limits is given: the dependence on the predominant understanding of the good; the freedom to choose the understanding of the good; the activity in the choice of an individual goal; subordination to the goals of others. The similarity of these limits (freedom/dependence, activity/subordination) to the axes defining the 'phase space' has been established, which makes sense for assessing the consequences of the implementation of convergent technologies. The potential of bioethics to assess the consequences of biomedical innovations has been discussed. These abilities are the consequence of the fact that bioeth-ics not only develops semiotic models, but also creates model ensembles. In such an ensemble, all the models have equal rights to exist because the main thing is their conjunction, their consistency, that is, their coherence. It is the modeling of coherence that allows bioethics to set analogues of the space of future states of anthropological systems transformed by innovations. It allows bioethics to implement the 'assembly' of all self-organization scenarios initiated by innovations. Without such an 'assembly', the assessment of innovations leads to the competition of prognoses, and each of them refers to the space determined by only one pair of axes, which results in a paradox: a refined assessment of the impact of convergent technologies leads to the divergence of the human future prognoses. The observed potential of bioethics, realizing the expertise of innovations as semiotic diagnostics of the 'phase space' of sociocultural systems, provides a sufficiently strict application of the concept apparatus of nonlinear dynamics without solving the measurement problem in humanitarian studies.

Keywords

Authors

References