Overview of Bioethics and Human Rights

January 31, 2025

Author: Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero

Versión en español

Human rights are a historical and ethical construct that reflects the aspirations of societies to guarantee the dignity, justice and freedom of all people. From their roots in ancient civilizations to their consolidation in the liberal thought of the eighteenth century, they have evolved in response to the social, political, and cultural challenges of each era. This gradual evolution was officially recognized in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1), a turning point in their universal acceptance. However, this evolution continued, leading to successive generations that broaden and deepen its scope by addressing new challenges and needs.

Each generation of human rights represents a reflection of the priorities and concerns of its time. The first generation, focused on civil and political rights, responds to the struggles for freedom in the face of state oppression. The second generation incorporates economic, social and cultural rights, which require active action by the State to guarantee decent living conditions. The third, more recent generation addresses global problems such as development, the environment and peace, highlighting the importance of international solidarity. As Laura Miraut Martín points out (2), this evolution is not only historical, but also axiological, since each generation of rights is linked to fundamental values such as freedom, equality and solidarity.

Currently, the discussion on a fourth generation of rights, linked to technology and bioethics, shows the need to adapt this framework to contemporary contexts, recognizing new challenges that affect human dignity in the digital and biotechnological era. The expansion of cyberspace and the digitalization of multiple aspects of daily life have driven the emergence of so-called digital rights, which seek to guarantee equity, security and privacy in the digital environment (3). In this context, the right to universal access to the Internet, the protection of personal data, the right to be forgotten and cybersecurity have become fundamental pillars for digital citizenship. However, the challenge lies not only in its recognition, but also in its effective materialization through appropriate regulatory frameworks, capable of responding to the speed of technological innovation and new emerging threats in the digital sphere.

Moreover, human rights are not just abstract principles; Its practical implementation requires engagement with other disciplines, including ethics and bioethics, to address complex dilemmas in a comprehensive way. This relationship makes it possible to address problems such as access to health, justice in scientific research and environmental protection, reinforcing an approach focused on human dignity and universal values. However, from a critical perspective, it is necessary to question how these rights have historically been instrumentalized within global power structures that perpetuate inequalities and social exclusion. The hegemonic conception of human rights has often served as a control device that responds to the interests of the global market and not necessarily to the realities and needs of marginalized peoples (4). In turn, international instruments, both binding and non-binding, have established the necessary legal framework to guarantee their protection, although not without challenges, since their application often does not recognize the historical and cultural particularities of regions such as Latin America.

Generations of Human Rights

The first generation of human rights, centered on civil and political rights, emerged as a reaction to abuses of state power. Inspired by the American and French revolutions, these rights include fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, suffrage and equality before the law, promoting non-state interference in the individual sphere (5). Subsequently, the second generation expanded this framework to include economic, social and cultural rights (6), which require positive action by the State to guarantee access to education, health and decent working conditions, as established in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The third generation, which emerged in the twentieth century, responds to global problems such as environmental degradation, armed conflicts and international inequalities (7). These rights, also known as collective rights, include the right to development, a healthy environment and peace. Its implementation, however, poses significant challenges due to the need for international cooperation beyond national borders. At present, the possibility of a fourth generation of rights, linked to technological and bioethical advances, is discussed. These include rights related to digital privacy, personal data protection and the ethical challenges of biotechnology, underscoring the need to adapt human rights to emerging contexts.

In addition, human rights have essential characteristics that guarantee their validity and relationship with ethical and bioethical principles. They are universal, indivisible and interdependent, meaning that all rights are equally important and interrelated. They are also inalienable and progressive, obliging States to ensure their continued progress. This connection with bioethics is evidenced in principles such as autonomy and justice, especially in areas such as health and scientific research, highlighting the importance of addressing ethical challenges from a comprehensive perspective and focused on human dignity. The historical development of human rights has not only given rise to successive generations, but has also reinforced fundamental principles such as equality, human dignity and universality, which guide their application in contemporary contexts.

Fundamental principles

Fundamental human rights principles, such as equality and non-discrimination, are essential to ensure that all people are treated fairly and without exclusion for reasons such as race, gender, religion or disability. These principles ensure the universality of human rights and promote more inclusive societies, reflected in areas such as health, where it seeks to guarantee equitable access to quality medical services, regardless of the socioeconomic status of individuals. In this way, social and legal frameworks are built that respect the dignity of each person.

Respect for human dignity constitutes the ethical axis of human rights, recognizing the intrinsic value of everyone. This principle requires that public decisions and policies be aimed at protecting and promoting this dignity, avoiding cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In contexts such as health care or criminal justice, ensuring respectful and humane treatment is a concrete manifestation of this principle, reinforcing the importance of person-centered actions.

In exceptional situations, human rights may be restricted under the principles of proportionality and necessity, provided that these limitations are justified and minimal. During health emergencies, for example, measures such as mobility restrictions may be necessary to protect public health, but they must be based on solid evidence and ensure that rights are not disproportionately violated. The suspension of rights in states of emergency does not imply their total disappearance, but a temporary reduction of their guarantees, always subject to regulatory limits and rigorous control to avoid abuses. According to the doctrine of international law, any restriction must respect the principle of proportionality, ensuring that no arbitrary measures are adopted or that compromise the dignity of people (8). These restrictions must be implemented with caution to balance collective well-being and individual rights, ensuring that they do not become tools for the systematic violation of fundamental rights.

The connection between human rights and bioethical principles, such as autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, reinforces a comprehensive approach to ethical decision-making. In health, justice is manifested in the equitable distribution of resources, while autonomy is reflected in respect for informed consent. In areas such as scientific research and environmental protection, this relationship is key to addressing ethical dilemmas and promoting an ethical and sustainable approach that supports the fundamental rights of individuals and communities.

International instruments

The main difference between binding and non-binding instruments lies in their obligatory nature. While binding treaties, such as international covenants and conventions, impose compliance on signatory states under the threat of sanctions or legal consequences, soft law instruments lack coercive force. However, the latter play an essential role as precursors to formal regulations, establishing principles and practices that often influence the creation of future regulations.

A notable example of this influence is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, despite not being legally binding, has served as the basis for the development of national constitutions and legislation protecting fundamental rights. Similarly, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights has guided public policies and regulations related to scientific research and health, promoting ethical standards at the global level (9).

These examples demonstrate that, although non-binding instruments are not formally binding, they have transformative power in shaping values, practices and norms. Its ability to influence judicial decisions and public policies highlights its relevance in responding to contemporary ethical and bioethical challenges, ensuring that the solutions adopted are in accordance with human dignity and fundamental rights.

Relationship between Ethics, Bioethics and Human Rights

The relationship between ethics, bioethics and human rights represents a tendency to protect human dignity in the face of the dilemmas that arise in modernity. Bioethics, as an interdisciplinary discipline, acts as a bridge between ethical principles and the legal framework of human rights, making it possible to comprehensively address the challenges that affect people's lives, health, and environment (10).

Bioethics has established itself as a space for dialogue between ethical reflection and the principles of human rights, especially in situations where dignity and fundamental values are at risk. For example, in the case of abortion, bioethics proposes an in-depth analysis of the autonomy of the woman and the rights of the conceived, seeking to balance values such as life, liberty and justice. Similarly, debates around euthanasia address the right of people to decide about their death, while questioning the medical act, and considering beneficence and non-maleficence as fundamental ethical principles.

Informed consent (11) is another paradigmatic case that illustrates this relationship. This bioethical principle, based on autonomy and respect for the person, is directly linked to the human right to integrity and freedom of decision. Ensuring that people understand the risks and benefits of a medical procedure is not only an ethical imperative, but also a legal obligation under human rights (12).

In the area of equitable access to health, bioethics and human rights require health systems to respect the principles of equality and justice (13). Bioethics stresses the need to make decisions that benefit the most vulnerable communities, while human rights establish that access to health is a universal right that must be protected by States.

Environmental bioethics is a field where the relationship with human rights becomes evident, especially in the context of climate crisis (14). The right to a healthy environment is a clear manifestation of this relationship, since environmental deterioration directly affects the health and well-being of people, especially those who live in conditions of greater vulnerability. From this perspective, bioethics emphasizes ethical responsibility to protect the environment for present and future generations, while human rights offer a legal framework to demand responsible actions from States and corporations.

In the case of the rights of vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, migrants and terminal patients, bioethics and human rights seek to guarantee dignified and equitable treatment. People with disabilities face significant barriers to accessing health, education, and employment, which requires ethical solutions that respect their autonomy and promote their full inclusion. In the case of migrants (15), ethical dilemmas include ensuring access to basic services such as health, regardless of their migration status, in line with the human rights to equality and non-discrimination. Terminal patients, on the other hand, face complex decisions related to the end of life, where bioethics promotes respect for physical life, but from a compassionate approach that respects their autonomy, while human rights guarantee access to palliative care and protection against unnecessary suffering.

In criminal justice, the application of bioethical principles and human rights is observed in respect for due process and the prohibition of cruel punishment, reinforcing the focus on human dignity.

In all these cases, bioethics and human rights complement each other, offering a framework of principles and norms that allows ethical dilemmas to be addressed from a comprehensive perspective, focused on the dignity and well-being of individuals and communities.

State responsibility

States have a fundamental responsibility for the promotion, protection and guarantee of human rights, both within their territory and before the international community. This obligation includes accountability to international organizations when violations that compromise human dignity occur, especially in contexts related to bioethical dilemmas. Respecting, protecting and guaranteeing human rights are essential duties that involve refraining from violating rights, preventing abuses by third parties and adopting the necessary measures to make these rights effective.

Mechanisms such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (15) and the UN Human Rights Committee (16) monitor compliance with these obligations, providing forums for victims to seek justice in cases of serious violations. Examples of these violations include the denial of basic health services or the conduct of medical experiments without informed consent. These bodies not only punish those responsible but also set important precedents to protect human dignity.

In the bioethical field, States face responsibility for actions or omissions that violate human rights. Emblematic cases of unethical medical experimentation, such as those carried out without informed consent, have left a legacy of mistrust and led to the development of international standards such as the Nuremberg Code (17) and the Declaration of Helsinki (18). In addition, public health policies that do not guarantee equitable access to essential medicines or necessary treatments represent a violation of the right to health, especially when they affect the most vulnerable populations. These state failures not only contravene their obligations but also generate significant ethical and legal consequences.

International organizations play a key role in monitoring and strengthening state responsibilities in human rights and bioethics. Agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) (19) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (20) develop global standards and support States in implementing inclusive policies. In cases of serious violations, such as crimes against humanity related to forced medical practices, the International Criminal Court (ICC) (21) acts as a mechanism of universal justice. This collaboration between States and international organizations not only strengthens the protection of human rights but also creates an ethical and legal framework to address contemporary bioethical challenges, placing human dignity at the center of every decision.

Conclusion

Human rights have proven to be a central axis in the construction of societies that are more just, equitable and respectful of human dignity. Its historical evolution reflects not only the struggles for freedom and equality, but also the ability of societies to adapt to the new challenges that arise over time. From the civil and political rights of the first generation to the collective and bioethical rights proposed in the most recent generations, this normative framework continues to expand its scope to address global and contemporary issues.

The relationship between human rights, ethics and bioethics highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to confront complex dilemmas in areas such as health, scientific research and environmental protection. This link not only reinforces the relevance of human rights in everyday practice but also underscores the need to make decisions based on ethical principles that prioritize the well-being of the most vulnerable individuals and communities.

In addition, the existence of international instruments, both binding and non-binding, has established an essential framework for the promotion and protection of human rights at the global level. However, the challenge remains to ensure that these instruments are effectively implemented, especially in contexts where States fail to meet their responsibilities. Collaboration between States and international agencies, together with active monitoring by civil society, remains essential to close these gaps.

Human rights remain an indispensable ethical and legal reference. Its ability to adapt to contemporary challenges, such as technological advances and global conflicts, reaffirms its relevance and relevance. Collective commitment to its defense is not only a moral imperative, but also an essential condition for sustainable development and peaceful coexistence among nations.

Bibliographic References

Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero is a lawyer, master and doctor in Bioethics from the Universidad Anahuac, Mexico. He was director of Human Capital, director and general coordinator in the Faculty of Bioethics. He currently works as a researcher in the Academic Directorate of Integral Training of the same University. He is a member of the Mexican National Academy of Bioethics and the Latin American and Caribbean Federation of Bioethics Institutions. This article was assisted in its writing using ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool developed by OpenAI. 

The opinions shared in this blog are the full responsibility of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent a unanimous opinion of the seminars, nor do they reflect an official position on the part of CADEBI. We value and encourage any comments, responses, or constructive criticism you wish to share.