Bioethics journal

The problem of epistemic justice/injustice has only recently become actively discussed, although it has existed since time immemorial. Apparently, the advent of humanoid technologies has focused scientists' attention on it in the context of concern for natural intelligence versus artificial intelligence. But perhaps the problem of searching for truth in epistemology and epistemology should have emerged as a field of neuroscience that has become increasingly relevant amid progress in brain research. Indeed, with the advent of what is commonly, but hardly fairly, called artificial intelligence, many questions have arisen among those who invented it but have yet to understand it. The need to turn to the understanding of natural intelligence has become evident, in order to understand the brain, consciousness, thought, and feeling. This integration of the desire to preserve naturalness, on the one hand, and the desire to discover new possibilities for a posthuman mentality, on the other, has brought to the fore the problem of epistemic justice/injustice.

The article analyzes the problem of the transformation of bioethics and the loss of its original meaning in the context of the complete decline of modern capitalism. The concepts of synergetics (attractor and strange attractor) are used in the analysis. Global capital, as a strange attractor, has brought humanity to the brink of destruction. However, returning bioethics to its roots can provide a way out of this crisis. This return allows us to consider conservative bioethics as an attractor for the future, in which it is possible to preserve the ethos as a social space for minimizing aggression and individualism, as well as to transform the global capitalist system according to bioethical principles. This transformation involves the decentralization of capital and the humanization of the education system.

As biology and medicine have progressed at a fast pace, complicated ethical problems have arisen, resulting in the establishment of a new scientific field known as bioethics. Its aim is to ensure that scientific advancement and human values are balanced, with a focus on human-centered knowledge. Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, there has been a growing emphasis from both scientists and public figures on the necessity of giving ethical principles precedence in science. Bioethics is founded on a philosophical comprehension of biomedical knowledge, which includes fields like genetics, transplantation, and technology. The term "bioethics" was first coined by Potter in the 1970s, but researchers like Iva Rinz and Amir Muzur have demonstrated that Fritz Jahr conceptually introduced the idea as early as the 1920s. The purpose of this study is not only to determine who rightfully deserves recognition as the founder of bioethics – be it Fritz Jahr, Van Rensselaer Potter, or another influential thinker – but also to highlight the discipline's profound influence on contemporary scientific thought and how it contributes to strengthening the moral responsibility of modern science and society. Bioethics is conceived not only as a practical guide but also as a humanistic legacy for future generations: the axiologizing and humanizing of human biology and bioethics in the 21st century are truly imperative, ensuring their rational and successful development.

The total integration of artificial intelligence into all spheres of society has brought to light a range of interdisciplinary problems. The most serious of these have emerged in healthcare and medicine. Despite the enormous potential of artificial intelligence, negative phenomena are being observed, including the diminishing role of the physician and progressive socio-psychological changes in the human personality. The article examines the philosophical, psychological, and legal interpretations of natural (human) and artificial (machine) intelligence, as well as their respective capabilities and advantages. In light of the population's ambiguous attitude towards the integration of AI into all areas of social life, the article presents statistical data characterizing the main trends and public sentiments associated with this issue. The results of a survey of psychology students on the topic of AI implementation are also considered. The article presents the findings from narrative interviews conducted with qualified medical experts regarding the introduction of artificial intelligence in specific areas of medical practice, outlining their primary views on the issue. A special focus of the article is on the ethical and legal questions surrounding the deployment of artificial intelligence and intelligent agents across various societal spheres. It addresses the need for regulation of the legal field and the definition of the employer's area of responsibility. An analysis of the introduction of artificial intelligence into healthcare and medicine suggests that its widespread use will lead to job losses in the medical field, which could, in turn, result in the complete replacement of humans by robots. This is fraught with severe consequences, including potential data leaks and their exploitation for selfish purposes, as well as software failures that could lead to total chaos and threaten human life and safety. Furthermore, the elimination of the need for human labor would inevitably lead to the complete degradation of humanity and the stagnation of society as a whole.

The growing medical tourism market is intensifying competition among medical organizations for international patients and increasing the importance of service as a factor in satisfaction and trust. Patients from countries for whom Islamic religious and cultural norms directly influence their perception of medical care, communication, and adherence to recommendations represent a particular potential for medical centers. The aim of this article is to systematize management and organizational practices that ensure culturally competent care for Muslim patients and to propose a framework for internal quality standards covering process organization, information support and translation, gender and family aspects, religious needs, halal food and medications, confidentiality, and procedure implementation. Based on these practices, a practical "standard outline" and a self-assessment checklist for medical organizations oriented toward the international market have been developed.

Background: This article presents the results of a study of traditional principles and values of family relations in contemporary Belarusian society. Against the backdrop of the global transformation of the family institution worldwide, our compatriots maintain a positive focus on preserving and strengthening traditional family values. Aim: to conduct a sociological study to identify traditional principles and values of family relations in contemporary Belarusian society. Materials and methods: A public opinion survey on family issues was conducted using a questionnaire posted on the official website of the Zheleznodorozhnoye Housing and Utilities Enterprise (Gomel, Republic of Belarus), with amendments and additions. A total of 436 people participated in the survey, including 121 (27.75 ± 2.14) % men and 315 (72.25 ± 2.14) % women. Results: The overwhelming majority of Belarusians surveyed – 376, (86.24 ± 1.65) %, – already have children. Some of these respondents – 39, (10.37 ± 1.57) %, – would like to have another child in the future, and 97, (25.80 ± 2.26) %, would not want to have any more children. 60 people, (13.76 ± 1.65) %, were childless at the time of the survey. Overall, 259 respondents, (59.40 ± 2.35) %, would like to have children in the future, while 41, (9.40 ± 1.40) %, did not. Among the main factors influencing the presence or absence of children in the family and their number, respondents identified the following: family income level – 285, (65.37 ± 2.28) %, housing conditions – 247, (56.65 ± 2.37) %, psychological readiness – 243, (55.73 ± 2.38) %, relationships within the family – 221, (50.69 ± 2.39) %, and medical indications – 214, (49.08 ± 2.39) %. Conclusion: The study reveals a certain stability of the spiritual foundations, meaning, and functions of the family in the minds of the modern generation of Belarusians, as well as a willingness to replicate the family patterns of their parents. The importance of further promoting and advocating the preservation of traditional family values and increasing the prestige of the family institution is evident.

Background: A patient's digital twin is a personalized model of a real patient's genetic, physiological, behavioral, and other data necessary for assessing and predicting their health status. A key element is the ability to continuously update the data – monitoring it – using scanning devices of varying complexity. Psychological readiness to use various types of gadgets that transmit somatic status indicators is one of the first steps in digital patient identification. Aim: to sociologically assess society's readiness for transformation into "digital corporeality" through mobile health monitoring devices. Materials and methods: The empirical base of the study is based on open data from the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), presented in a 2025 survey on a national sample (N = 1.600). Results: According to the survey data, the majority of respondents (56 %) associate this practice with improving quality of life through disease prevention and maintaining lost functions, while 34–45 % are ready to use devices that monitor hemodynamic or biochemical parameters. At the same time, every second respondent (51 %) noted the legal impossibility of legally resolving the issue, 60 % associate potential threats with the loss of personal information, and every fifth respondent views personal monitoring as an interference with human nature and a loss of control over their body. Conclusion: The analysis demonstrates societal responsiveness to digital interventions in routine medical practice.  At the same time, less than half of respondents are prepared for digital twin replacement. These alarming expectations have a real basis, stemming from the ethical risks of threatening patient privacy and autonomy, as well as their digital vulnerability. Given the inertia of legislative practice, the expansion of the new field of bioethics – Neoethics – into all social spheres seems urgent, with healthcare being a priority.