We begin this second issue of our journal with a mosaic of topics that suggest that some issues in bioethics continue to raise debates and generate pertinent reflections.

The first article, by Dr. Margarita Otero and Dr. Jaqueline Pratt, brings to the table once again the close relationship between human beings and the environment, highlighting the commitment and responsibility of the former towards the latter.

To this end, they incorporate the notion of environmental ethics to emphasize that the excesses of human beings have put at risk not only the environment they inhabit but also their own species, which is why it is necessary to promote a greater awareness based on the search for the common good, considering, always, a projective vision focused on future generations. With this, environmental ethics will derive from an integral human ecology.

The two extremes of the practice of environmental ethics are also clearly seen: on the one hand, a biocentrism that places human beings on the same level as the rest of nature and, on the other, an anthropocentrism that places them above nature; both positions, the authors clarify, are equally dangerous and therefore a harmonization must be sought, which can be achieved through a Bioethics that acts as a bridge between the sciences and the humanities.

The most interesting aspect of this first article is that the authors reinforce this idea of mediating between both extreme positions based on the approaches of Pope Francis in Laudato Sí and Hans Jonas with his principle of responsibility. The point of convergence between the two lies in their constant concern for future generations to transform present actions to move from an environmental ethic to an integral human ecology.

The second article by Dr. Sandoval presents an extensive review of the origins of medical practice and the codes and oaths that have governed it since its beginnings to identify the principles of bioethics and, specifically, of ontologically based personalist bioethics.

Thus, the first record offered by the author dates to 4000 B.C. where medicine was conceived in a ritualistic and magical way until it was impregnated by a therapeutic spirit having the first medical prescription recorded in Mesopotamia. This also documented the first code that attempted to regulate medical practice, the Code of Hammurabi.

From this code many more were developed within which the author highlights the Hippocratic Oath and the one derived from the Geneva Convention which was adopted by the World Medical Association in 1948 and being updated for the last time in 2017.

After analyzing the bioethical principles present in the oaths and codes described the author bets for an update of the Hippocratic Oath that reflects the principles of an ontologically grounded personalist Bioethics.

For his part, Dr. Palomares, in the third article of this issue, shows an evident and pressing reality of the aging population in Latin America and the challenges this presents for personalist bioethics.

Faced with the inversion of the population pyramid that Latin America is undergoing, says the author, there is a risk of simplistic and reductionist approaches to deal with it, such as the legalization of euthanasia, which, besides having pragmatic overtones, represents a conflict of bioethical principles: on the one hand, personal autonomy and, on the other, the defense of life.

The truly ethical option, Palomares proposes, focuses on applying the principles of personalist bioethics that consider each person as unique and with an ontological value independent of their age and/or condition, thus promoting the integral inclusion of older adults. This integration must also be accompanied by other principles such as respect for human dignity, physical life, solidarity, and subsidiarity and the common good.

The fourth article shared by Maroun Badr focuses on the notions of political authority and biopower which, although analyzed by the author from the French legislation and its constitution, the analysis can be extended to other legislations since the approach is based on the premise that both civil and religious authority converge in the protection of human rights in such a way that both can be materialized in the principles of the Christian social doctrine, although with some differences and nuances.

Thus, the author analyzes that the civil authority has the duty to protect human dignity even if to do so it has to impose sanctions in case of possible damage to it. In tracing the origin of this scope, the author refers us to the ideals of the French Revolution of liberty, equality and fraternity and then compares them with some of the principles of personalist bioethics but also finds distance from them by relying on those of the social doctrine as in the case of the defense of life from birth to natural death.

Finally, the author mentions the importance of political authority being based on the people, something that in social doctrine is present in the principle of participation. Thus, the political authority that defends life and the religious authority that defends life converge in the principles of social doctrine, at least in general.

The fifth article represents a real novelty in terms of the monitoring of bioethics institutions in the Ibero-American region. The authors Cabrera, Sanchez, Cerdio and Molina share with us the results of a research carried out by the Anahuac Center for Strategic Development in Bioethics, which shows 157 institutions detected with activity focused on bioethics, something that constitutes an interesting knowledge that adds to the generation of more knowledge of bioethics in the region mentioned.

Having identified them in Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, as well as the national commissions of these countries, it has been possible to take the first step in the formation of what is intended to be the Ibero-American Bioethics Network whose purpose is the exchange of institutional and bioethical knowledge in the region.

Finally, this issue presents two reviews that revive the debate on other current issues

In the first place, Dr. Merino presents a review of the work The bridge between bioethics and medical practice: Medical Professionalism by authors Ćurković and Borovečki in which special emphasis is placed on the importance of professionalizing medical practice by adopting and promoting, in addition to excellence in the knowledge that illuminates it, ethical values such as responsibility, ethical principles put into practice, altruism and humanism. This will make it possible to give the doctor-patient relationship an even closer bond through the doctor›s professional behavior.

The second review, by Fr. Francisco Ballesta L.C., focuses attention on the danger of ideologies, highlighting among these, gender ideology, which is extensively analyzed in the reviewed work by Javier Pérez Ruz entitled: Análisis de la disforia de género en el ámbito pediátrico. Scientific and bioethical review of the therapy.

Ballesta details how, through unethical medical-scientific practices, it is possible to go from bioethics to sick bioethics.