Bioethical Constitutionalism as a New Vector of Development of Legal and Existential Worldview in the Era of Genetic Information and Biojurisprudence of Human Rights

The article identifies the scientific, methodological, ethical and legal foundations of bioethical constitutionalism, reveals doctrinal approaches to understanding bioethics in the framework of international discussion, analyzes the features of the subject and methodology of bioethics, considers the importance of legalization and medicalization of the principles of bioethics and the formation of biojurisprudence and bioethical constitutionalism. In the modern period, under the influence of advances in the study of science and technology, there is a co-evolutionary development of bioethics, prescriptive constitutionalism and new human rights, which reflect the process of interweaving and active interaction of the biological, social, legal and cultural order.

The concept of bioethical constitutionalism is developing at the intersection of four areas of knowledge and achievements: biomedical ethics, biology, medicine and human rights. It is based on humanitarian biosecurity and the existential value of human life as a socio-biological and ethical-ideological phenomenon. The author comes to the conclusion that bioethical constitutionalism combines doctrinal, normative, institutional, medical-legal, technological and ethical-philosophical components. The article states that new human rights should include bioethical human rights in the field of somatics and reproduction (somatic and reproductive), which, together with bioneurotechnologies, determine, on the one hand, the biosafety of an individual and human society, and, on the other hand, facilitate the implementation of biosocial human reproduction and the maintenance of the boundaries of invasion into nature and human capabilities. The central place in the system of bioethical human rights is occupied by the right to biosocial reproduction, which has a complex nature and is an existential, biological and social expression of human capabilities and abilities to ensure the maintenance of anthropological diversity and intergenerational development of the human species on earth.

1. Gurevich P. S., Frolov I. T. Philosophical Understanding of Man. In Man: Thinkers of the Past and Present on His Life, Death and Immortality. The Ancient World – the Age of Enlightenment. Editorial Board: I. T. Frolov et al. Comp. P. S. Gurevich. Moscow, Politizdat, 1991, pp. 3–19. (in Russ.)

2. Jasanoff S. (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London, Routledge, 2004. 332 pp.

3. Kasavin I. T. STS: anticipatory naturalization or catch-up modernization? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2014, no. 1 (39), pp. 5–17. (in Russ.)

4. Jasanoff S. (ed.). Reframing Rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age. London; Cambridge, 2011. 320 p.

5. Hofmann B. Bioethics: No Method-No Discipline? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2025, vol. 34(1), pp. 99–108. doi:10.1017/S0963180124000136

6. Callahan D. Bioethics as a Discipline. The Hastings Center Studies, 1973, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 66–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527474.

7. Adler D., Shaul R. Z. Disciplining bioethics: towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research. Accountability in Research, 2012, vol. 19 (3), pp. 187–207. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2012.692971.

8. Griffi ths J. O. Bioethics, the Ontology of Life, and the Hermeneutics of Biology. In Phenomenology of Bioethics: Technoethics and Lived-Experience, ed. by S. Ferrarello, The International Library of Bioethics 84. Cham, Springer, 2021, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65613-3_1

9. Kopelman L. M., Bioethics as a Second-Order Discipline: Who Is Not a Bioethicist? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 2006, vol. 31, iss. 6, pp. 601–628, https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310601009414

10. Beauchamp T. L., Childress J. F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York, Oxford University Press, 2013. 480 p.

11. Goldenberg M. J. Evidence-based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the “empirical turn” from normative bioethics. BMC Med Ethics, 2005, vol. 6: Article number: 11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-6-11

12. Moiseev V. I. Bioethics: textbook: in 2 volumes. Vol. 1 General part, V. I. Moiseev, O. N. Moiseeva. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media, 2021. 160 p. (in Russ.)

13. Kravets I. A. Anthropological Constitutionalism and Humanistic Axiology of Legal Status and Dignity of Man. Juridical science and practice, 2020, vol. 16 (3), pp. 5–19. DOI 10.25205/2542-0410-2020-16-3-5-19. (in Russ.)

14. Kravets I. A. Anthropological bioconstitutionalism and constitutional bioethics: prospects for the constitutionalization of biodiversity and the constitutional reform of 2020. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo = Constitutional and municipal law, 2022, no. 5, рp. 11–15. DOI 10.18572/1812-3767-2022-5-11-15 (in Russ.)

15. Komarova V. V., Basova A. V., Belov O. A. [et al.] Digitalization and Biotechnology in Ensuring the Right to Health in Emergencies. Moscow, Prospect Limited Liability Company, 2024, 304 p. (in Russ.)

16. Aleksandrova A. V., Berg L. N., Bolkov M. A. [et al.] Modern Biomedical Law. Moscow, Prospect Limited Liability Company, 2023, 480 p. (in Russ.)

17. Foucault M. The History of Sexuality. Volume I: An Introduction. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley. New York, Pantheon Books, 1978, 168 p.

18. Kravets I. A. Constitutional biojurisprudence and the achievement of bioethical well-being (part 1). Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2022, no. 2 (147), pp. 16–42. DOI 10.21128/1812-7126-2022-2-16-42. (in Russ.)

19. Kravets I. Constitutional Biojurisprudence and Achieving Bioethical Well-Being (Part 2). Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2022, no. 3 (148), pp. 16–32. DOI 10.21128/1812-7126-2022-3-16-32. (in Russ.)

20. Kruss V. I. Personal (“somatic”) human rights in the constitutional and philosophical-legal dimension: towards the formulation of the problem. State and Law, 2000, no. 10, pp. 43–50. (in Russ.)

21. Kovler A. I. Anthropology of Law: Textbook. for universities; Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Law University. Moscow, NORMA publ., 2002, 467 p. (in Russ.)

22. Alekseenko A. Somatic rights as a new category of human rights. PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2022. DOI: 10.48683/1926.00117015.

23. Harris K. M., McDade T. W. The Biosocial Approach to Human Development, Behavior, and Health Across the Life Course. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2018, vol. 4 (4), pp. 2–26. doi: 10.7758/RSF.2018.4.4.01.

24. Irkhin I. V. On the public-law institutionalization of the phenomenon of intergenerational solidarity (Russian model). Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo = Constitutional and municipal law, 2023, no. 1, pp. 22–25. DOI 10.18572/1812-3767-2023-1-22-25. (in Russ.)

25. Presnyakov M. V. Human rights in the modern constitutional and legal space. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo = Constitutional and municipal law, 2023, no. 1, pp. 47–52. DOI 10.18572/1812-3767-2023-1-47-52. (in Russ.)

26. Tokarczyk R. Biojurisprudence: foundations of law for the twenty-fi rst century. Lublin, Maria Curie-Skłodowskiej University Press, 2008, 113 p.

27. Kornev V. N. Biojurisprudence – a new direction in law and legal science of the 21st century. Justice, 2021, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 8–15. (in Russ.)

28. Umnova-Konyukhova I. A., Aleshkova I. A. Biolaw as a branch of law of a new generation. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Law, 2021, no. 41. pp. 98–118. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/41/9. (in Russ.)

29. Umnova-Konyukhova I. A. Biosafety law, biolaw and biojurisprudence: the relationship between concepts and their content. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo = Constitutional and municipal law, 2023, no. 12, pp. 20–26. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3767-2023-12-20-26. (in Russ.)

30. Kholodova E. I., Turshuk L. D. Bioethics and human rights: international legal regulation and ways of implementation. Actual problems of Russian law, 2017, no. 3, pp. 193–198. https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2017.76.3.193-198 (in Russ.)

31. Talbot M. Bioethics. An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 476 pp.

32. Düwell M. Bioethics: methods, theories, domains. New York, Routledge, 2013. 320 p.

33. Kravets I. A. Bioneuroconstitutionalism – a Strategic Paradigm of Russian and International Constitutional Jurisprudence. In Modern Russian Constitutionalism: on the 85th Anniversary of the Birth of Academician O. E. Kutafi n. Moscow, Prospect Limited Liability Company, 2023, pp. 193–201. (in Russ.)

34. Isaeva N. V. The subject of constitutional law in the anthropological context. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2018, no. 11, pp. 148–158. https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2018.96.11.148-158 (in Russ.)

35. Kinghorn W. A., McEvoy M. D., Michel A., Balboni M. Professionalism in modern medicine: does the emperor have any clothes? Academic Medicine, 2007, vol. 82 (1), pp. 40–45. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000249911.79915.4d.

36. Pellegrino E. D. Professionalism, profession and the virtues of the good physician. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine, 2002, vol. 69 (6), pp. 378–384.

37. Ćurković M., Borovečki A. (eds.). The Bridge Between Bioethics and Medical Practice. Medical Professionalism. Cham, Springer, 2022, 493 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09733-1

38. Seoane J.-A., Vergara O. (eds.). The Discourse of Biorights. European Perspectives. Cham, Springer, 2024. XV, 318 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66804-3