Bioethics teaching: adapting activities for remote education

Castro, Laura del Carmen Rueda

doi:10.1590/1983-803420233550EN

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Research • Rev. Bioét. 31 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-803420233550EN copy

Bioethics teaching: adapting activities for remote education

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Bioethics professors from health programs at O’Higgins University, Chile, structure their courses based on local needs. A qualitative study was conducted with undergraduates, first-years in 2018, to identify the bioethics teaching needs of the local community for program reformulation. Courses taught for three consecutive years underwent changes in the first semester of 2020 due to the sanitary crisis. This article analyzes whether participation, collective production and questioning were preserved as an achievement of in-person teaching purposes. Given the context and the results obtained, program and project underwent changes when translated into the virtual modality, since student needs were known. The teaching experiences presented allow us to conclude that the bioethics teaching objectives were met despite the sanitary emergency.

Keywords
Bioethics; Program; Methodology; Workshops; Case studies

1. Case presentation	Medical indications. Patient preferences. Issues related to quality of life. Contextual traits.
2. Clarification of doubts	Once the case is read, we move on to the “questions phase.” They must correctly understand all aspects of the story presented.
3. Identification of problems and conflicting values.	At this stage of the method, the problems are detected and the conflicting values are identified. In both the understanding and the deliberation phases, reference is made to questions and problems, which can be grouped according to the four principles of bioethics: Nonmaleficence; Justice; Autonomy; Beneficence.
4. Deliberation, proposals for lines of action	Problems are analyzed on a case-by-case basis, finally selecting the one that is considered the most important.
5. Optimized line of action	The optimized line of action must be the most prudent, the most sensible, that is, the one that respects the values at stake to a greater degree and number.
6. Proof of legality	It consists in proving that the proposed solution is not contrary to the legal framework, but that it respects the legal duty.

Criteria	Very satisfactory (4 points)	Satisfactory (3 points)	Unsatisfactory (2 points)	Very unsatisfactory (0 point)
1. Case presentation	The case is presented with all necessary and relevant pieces of information to base the deliberation.	The case is presented with pieces of information that are neither relevant nor necessary for deliberation.	There is presentation of very general and confusing pieces of information necessary for deliberation.	There is no presentation of pieces of information that are consequential for deliberation on the case.
2. Clarification of doubts	The facts of the case are clarified and doubts are presented contributing to the clarification of the relevant facts about the case.	Facts and/or doubts presented are not fully consequential to clarify relevant facts about the case.	Facts and/or doubts are presented, but these do not imply the clarification of relevant facts.	There is no presentation of doubts for clarifying relevant facts.
3. Identification of problems and conflicting values.	The problems with their respective bioethical values and principles in conflict are identified, presenting a brief and coherent analysis of each of them. Finally, an issue is selected for deliberation.	Ethical problems are identified, but do not specify conflicting bioethical values and principles.	Only one of the ethical problems is identified, without specifying the bioethical values and principles in conflict.	Ethical problems and conflicting values cannot be identified.
4. Deliberation, proposals for lines of action	The deliberation is carried out presenting an argued and reasoned analysis of the possible lines of action.	The deliberation is carried out presenting an incomplete analysis, since not all possible lines of action are addressed, or the arguments and reasoning are weak. A problem considered important is selected.	The deliberation is carried out presenting an incomplete analysis, since not all possible lines of action are addressed, or these lines of action are not argued nor properly based. A relevant problem is not selected.	Neither deliberation nor analysis of problems is carried out. A problem is not selected.
5. Optimized line of action	The analysis of the line of action is prudent and respects to a greater degree and number the values at stake, preserving the moral reference system.	The analysis of the line of action does not acquire argumentation in its reflection, but does not violate the values at stake nor the moral reference system.	The analysis of the line of action is not the most sensible, however, it does not totally violate the values at stake nor the moral reference system.	The analysis of the line of action is not sensible, since it does not respect to a greater degree and number the values at stake. It also does not respect the moral reference system.
6. Proof of legality	The verification or reasoned comparison is carried out, evincing with the aspects and laws in force that the proposed solution is governed by the legal framework.	The verification is carried out using only some aspects and laws to prove that the proposed solution is adequate or contrary to the legal framework.	The verification is performed with poor and confusing reasoning. Not clear whether the proposed solution is adequate or contrary to the legal framework.	There is no reasoning to prove that the proposed solution is governed or not by the legal framework.

Conselho Federal de Medicina SGAS 915, lote 72, CEP 70390-150, Tel.: (55 61) 3445-5932, Fax: (55 61) 3346-7384 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: bioetica@portalmedico.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: Rua San Isidro, 951, Centro Sur CP 8330845. Santiago, Chile.