This fourth 2019 print, of the end of the year, contains articles with multiple and novel approaches. The article on peace heads this delivery: as a complex humanizing system, by Dr. Juajilbio and Otero, which provides a study with an impeccable interdisciplinary methodology. It describes the different concepts of peace, pointing out how this diversity constitutes in itself a problem for the construction of peace. Although the article develops the subject with some examples that happened in Colombia where the author is from, the article can be totally extended to any place. Thus, it starts from a thorough descriptive analysis of the difficulties that exist, for the interpretation of peace, and therefore for its establishment, due not only to different philosophical-political bases, but also to the heterogeneity of contents, which make communication and understanding essential for joint work difficult, thereby recognizing the relational dimension of the peace construct. This approach from the complexity is an exercise for the bioethical analysis of any complex problem. He concludes that stopping the war, even the unarmed, is insufficient, since only peace can humanize the social collective. That peace presents a complex system, because of the different actors, the aforementioned diversity of interpretations, for the multiplicity of interests, for self-organization, and for the struggle of social equilibria. All this leads to the construction and not to the de-construction of social humanity.

Germán Zurriarán of the University of La Rioja, Spain, analyzes the poles of surrogacy, as an act of solidarity, and opposes it to the exploitation of women and children. The topic is not unfamiliar coming unexpectedly for professionals and those interested in bioethics; however, it is an issue that today remains controversial, because it raises a struggle between «rights». The author analyzes the possibility of the child, from the premise that they are not a right of the parents. Under no circumstance. It also points out the problems of the commercialization of the human body, (even if it were an altruistic donation) and the injustice towards the pregnant woman, the son of other parents, and the legal and emotional problems that entails.

The analysis prepared by Dr. Herrera Fragoso is on a legal resolution that is under review, which drives towards eugenics. This is a clear example of the methodology used by biojuristics, this branch of bioethics that has such an important development and importance. The case of this legal protection refers to the case of a hospital that refuses the abortion of a child who «would have a relatively normal life. Discriminating against the fetus under a eugenic paradigm». The article identifies two of the most frequent arguments regarding different patient requests, which are gender discrimination, and the violation of the right to health. The author describes the pathology diagnosed prenatally (Klinefelter syndrome) and analyzes the feasibility of a productive existence and if raised in an environment of acceptance and help, with great chances of being happy. In addition, he deepens the common problem that biojuristics studies in almost any case, and that it is the law of the strongest, as well as the neo interpretation of the difference (due to disability, illness, identity, etc.) that «considers the problem it is not in the person... but in the social factors that generate their exclusion». It also notes the opinion of UN agencies, and some International Documents, which explain in greater depth and certainty the so called «Right to Health». It concludes that eugenics violates the universal ethical principle of doing good and avoiding evil and that would discriminate against the fetus because of its disability, thereby ignoring international resolutions regarding health, and even regarding the abortion of disabled people «violating the principles of completeness and impartiality.»

Dr. de los Ríos addresses the issue of gender from the perspective of vulnerability, which although it is handled in the public agenda, in ethical literature it is not usual to talk about this aspect, without victimizing the person. Because one of the very valuable contributions of this issue is the criticism of the unrestricted freedom argument, which anthropologically is a fallacy, because, if «the person does not have a task to do through his freedom and his judgment, then the meaning is lost... of reality... [Moreover], the person attends the collapse of their intrinsic value... [Reduces] their existence... to the realm of beings that have no freedom «Explains the phenomenon of vulnerability as characteristic of each person, for the «fragile and mortal condition of the human being, but, at the same time, the relationship with others and their environment, the ability to exercise their freedom and forge their identity, therefore, social vulnerability arises». He concludes that LGBT people deserve respect for their dignity, not because of their generic sex identity, but because of their human condition.

Finally, this number concludes with an article on the care of the geriatric patient, from the Gerontological care. This article by Dr. Gómez Álvarez focuses on the quality of life that is sought in the care of any chronic patient, such as the integration of all interdisciplines that are part of gerontology. Although the article describes gerontology, it does not address that topic, but it does it about the methodology of bioethics and exemplifies the interdisciplinary analysis with the care of the elderly patient. Moreover, it proposes the term «active quality of life due» as an ethical axis that guides gerontology. Also as a concept, that unifies methodological interdisciplinarity.