THE TWO BIOETHICS. HEALTH AND DISEASE

It is proposed the clinical methodology for bioethical investigation as a source to award the confrontation between the principialist and the personalist bioethic. It is thought that this methodology makes the hipocratical ethic compatible with the bioethic centered in the person, avoiding the actual confusion between health-disease criterions. The Anglo-Saxons bioethical statements changed the pre-Christian principles, which saw nature, as an objective reality centered in the person. The euphemism and the ambiguity of the bioethical principles and the gender ideology, have in common the substitution of the objective goodness and its relationship with human freedom, for a "moral autonomy", which is compatible with human harm. Both ignore the "primum non nocere" principle, what matter is not to make harm. The education of freedom is the best option to meet the bioethical objective proposed by Potter, to humanize the technological application. To avoid the risks of "survival" suggested in 1970, are today expressed in mistaken the health-disease criterion, while ignoring the hipocratical concepts of harm. Neither health nor damage are just biological: they cover the person integrity, as it is showed by Kliksberg, planning a multidisciplinary bioethical answer.