TOddler

UNESCO Chair

ES | EN

TOddler
Project
Methodology
Dilemmas
Blog

TOddler

Global Bioethics of Encounter

Transformative open dialogue on dignity, ecology, and rights

Toddler is an academic and methodological initiative that seeks to build bridges among different bioethical currents in contexts of polarization.
Its proposal promotes bioethics of encounter, open to dialogue, cooperation, and ethical convergence.

An ethics of encounter that embraces diversity without diluting principles.

TOddler is a methodological and pedagogical proposal that promotes a global bioethics of encounter, affirmative and transformative, inspired by open reason and love of neighbor.

It arises as a response to the ethical challenges of a world marked by cultural, epistemic, and social polarization, seeking to open paths of dialogue, cooperation, and convergence in contexts of diversity and conflict.

TOddler is composed of an international and interdisciplinary team of female and male academics linked to the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights (Rome), the Anáhuac Center for Strategic Development in Bioethics (CADEBI) of Universidad Anáhuac, the RIU Network, and other institutions committed to Catholic identity, human rights, and integral human development.

Our mission is to build bridges among knowledge systems, cultures, and convictions in order to promote an open and hospitable global bioethics.

TOddler starts from an overwhelming reality: global, political, cultural, epistemic, and moral polarization is eroding our capacity to respond ethically to humanity’s great challenges.

This fragmentation weakens shared languages, breaks the possibility of building solid ethical consensus, creates gaps in the protection of the human person, and reduces public deliberation to defensive or functional positions.

In the face of this crisis of dialogue and meaning, TOddler proposes recovering an open, affirmative, and deeply human bioethics that recognizes the value of life, the dignity of every person, and interdependence with our common home.

Our proposal is located at the intersection of global bioethics and integral ecology, grounded in the principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church (DSI), with an approach that transcends the technical and promotes a relational, collaborative, and proactive ethics.

We propose TOddler, a transformative and affirmative methodology at the service of global bioethics and integral ecology, grounded in open reason, personalism, and the DSI.

TOddler is a living, relational, and pedagogical tool designed to generate ethical convergence in contexts of diversity and conflict.

We do not seek an ethics of the lowest common denominator, but rather an ethics of encounter that embraces difference without diluting principles, and that builds bridges among knowledge systems, cultures, and convictions.

Our methodology articulates a solid anthropological vision with tools for dialogue, ethical discernment, and formative action.

TOddler seeks to weave strategic alliances, build ethical community, and open paths for cultural transformation.

We aspire to consolidate an international collaborative network that promotes, adapts, and replicates this methodology in diverse social, educational, and political contexts, promoting a personalist, open bioethics committed to the care of the person and the planet.

We are interested in establishing ties with universities, research centers, ecclesial actors, bioethics networks, public policy leaders, and social organizations that share an ethical vision of human development and integral sustainability.

We want to join efforts with those who believe that global bioethics and integral ecology are not an accessory, but the core of every truly human, just, and lasting transformation.

Project

Convergences and Divergences among International Bio-Law, Personalist Bioethics, and Global Bioethics

This protocol proposes a comparative analysis among three complementary approaches —Personalist Bioethics, Global Bioethics, and International Bio-Law— to understand how they dialogue with one another, or come into tension, in the resolution of contemporary bioethical dilemmas.

Approach: Comparative, interdisciplinary, and hermeneutic-analytical, with a framework of common categories to contrast values, principles, and methods.

General objective

To systematically analyze the degree of compatibility among the three perspectives at the axiological, principle-based, and methodological-practical levels.

Values and principles

To identify fundamental values, bioethical principles, and comparative criteria to build matrices of convergences and divergences.

Contemporary dilemmas

To select relevant dilemmas and resolve them by applying the methodologies of each current to propose an operational framework for dialogue.

Specific objectives

• Identify the fundamental values as a basis for ethical comparison.

• Select the relevant dilemmas and resolve them from each perspective.

• Measure the degree of convergence/divergence in resolution methodologies.

• Analyze bioethical principles as comparative criteria.

• Evaluate methodological convergences and divergences and identify integrative criteria.

• Identify the fundamental values and principles as a basis for ethical comparison.

Back to top

Methodology

A comparative approach in four phases

The protocol proposes a systematic analysis process to contrast values, principles, and ways of resolving dilemmas across three perspectives. Each phase produces inputs (matrices, syntheses, and integrative criteria) that feed into the next. As a result of each completed phase, inputs will be obtained, such as matrices, syntheses, and integrative criteria, which will serve as the support on which the following phase will be built.

Key: The aim is to establish an operational framework for interdisciplinary ethical dialogue without erasing the identity of each current.

Systematization of values and principles

Identification and systematization of values, principles, and methodological criteria from the three perspectives to create a common framework of categories.

Selection of relevant contemporary bioethical dilemmas and an initial approach from Personalist Bioethics, Global Bioethics, and Bio-Law

Selection of relevant contemporary bioethical dilemmas, approaching them from Personalist Bioethics, Global Bioethics, and International Bio-Law.

In-depth comparison of dilemmas at the axiological level (values), the level of principles, and the methodological-practical level (argumentation and decision-making)

An exhaustive comparison exercise will be carried out based on three axes: the axiological axis, that is, values; the principles axis; and the methodological-practical axis, corresponding to argumentation and decision-making.

Comparative evaluation, integration of results, and proposal of an operational dialogue framework that preserves the identity of each approaching

This fourth phase, a comparative evaluation will be carried out based on the previously developed axes, thus allowing the integration of results and the formation of the proposal for an operational dialogue framework that preserves the identity of each approach.

Back to top

8 Topics to Explore

Dilemma Category

KEY WORDS

Embryo, reproduction, genetics

 

EXAMPLES
  • From what moment should human life be subject to protection?
  • Is it ethically admissible to terminate a pregnancy under certain circumstances? If the answer is affirmative, under which ones?
  • Should the life of the unborn child or the autonomy of the woman be prioritized when they come into conflict?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    Euthanasia, ICU, palliative care

     

    EXAMPLES
  • Is it morally legitimate to deliberately cause the death of a patient in order to relieve their suffering?
  • Is it permissible to administer deep palliative sedation when it may shorten the patient’s life?
  • Should the patient’s advance directives always be respected, even when they conflict with medical or family criteria? Why?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    Rights, discrimination, vulnerability

     

    EXAMPLES
  • How can equal access to reproductive health services be guaranteed without violating ethical, cultural, or religious convictions?
  • Should it be considered the responsibility of the State to guarantee universal, dignified, and free access to menstrual management products, given that their absence affects the health, social participation, and equality of opportunity of millions of women? Can we speak of social justice, or even full citizenship, when a basic biological need depends exclusively on individual economic capacity
  • How can ethical limits be defined that allow the full and respectful inclusion of trans people in spaces, policies, and services, without this implying the neglect of safeguards intended to protect women and girls from situations of risk or discrimination? How can equally relevant principles — equality, non-discrimination, safety, dignity, and justice — be balanced without turning the protection of one group into the violation of another?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    AI, data, innovation

     

    EXAMPLES
  • Should editing heritable genes in human embryos be allowed for enhancement purposes?
  • Is it ethical to use neurotechnology’s to increase memory, attention, or work performance?
  • Can decision-making regarding diagnosis, prioritization, or allocation of healthcare resources be delegated to AI?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    Sustainability, planetary health

     

    EXAMPLES
  • Can it be ethically justified to prioritize economic activity when certain industries generate sustained toxic pollution that affects the health, quality of life, and even life expectancy of nearby communities?
  • Can it be considered morally acceptable for developed countries to export toxic electronic waste to nations that lack the infrastructure to manage it safely, exposing vulnerable communities to heavy metals, water contamination, and irreversible damage to health?
  • Can it be considered ethical for wealthy countries to export their garbage — solid, electronic, or toxic waste — to countries with fewer resources simply to evade the environmental and health costs that this same waste would generate in their own territory?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    Pluralism, consensus, rights

     

    EXAMPLES
  • To what extent should traditional, medical, agricultural, spiritual, or ecological knowledge be recognized as valid when its claims or practices seem to contradict available scientific evidence? If this knowledge embodies historical experiences, ties to territory, and forms of community care, how can its epistemic and cultural value be balanced with the ethical obligation to guarantee safe, effective, and evidence-based interventions, especially when people’s health and lives are at stake?
  • How should a cultural practice be addressed when, while constituting an essential part of a people’s collective identity, it also appears to violate widely recognized human rights? If direct prohibition may reproduce colonial logics and strip communities of their agency, what ethical criteria allow us to distinguish between respect for cultural diversity and the obligation to protect the integrity, dignity, and autonomy of those who could be harmed?
  • Should companies share benefits when they use traditional knowledge to develop medicines or seeds? Should those royalties be retroactive?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    Patents, health justice

     

    EXAMPLES
  • Is it ethical for an essential medication to have radically different prices across countries, despite equal clinical need?
  • Should a patent be suspended when its cost prevents access to a life-saving treatment?
  • Should the mandatory use of generics be promoted when they are more accessible, even if there is debate about perceived equivalence?

    •  

    KEY WORDS

    Borders, care, rights

     

    EXAMPLES
  • Should a state guarantee comprehensive healthcare for migrants in irregular situations?
  • Should migrants receive priority in emergency situations if they are at greater risk of exclusion or mortality?
  • Is it ethical to use migrants’ biometric data for border surveillance if it may be used for discriminatory purposes?

    •  

    Back to top

     

     

     

     

     

    RIU width=

    CAMPUS NORTE

    Av. Universidad Anáhuac 46, Col. Lomas Anáhuac

    Huixquilucan, Estado de México, C.P. 52786.

    Conmutador: +52 (55) 5627 0210

    Del interior sin costo: +52 (55) 5627 0210

    Aviso de privacidad.

    SÍGUENOS EN:    Contacto Facebook  Contacto Twitter  Contacto Instagram  Contacto Youtube

    CAMPUS SUR

    Av. de las Torres 131, Col. Olivar de los Padres

    Ciudad de México. C.P. 01780

    Conmutador: +52 (55) 5628 8800

     

    Aviso de privacidad.

    SÍGUENOS EN:    Contacto Facebook  Contacto Twitter  Contacto Instagram  Contacto Youtube

    Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores, S.C. 2024. Todos los Derechos Reservados.