Global Consensus Statement

Recommendations

  1. The inclusion of bioethics as a foundation pillar in health professions education is essential to advancing humanized, responsible, and socially accountable health care. Accordingly, all health professions education programmes should include bioethics as a longitudinal component of the curriculum. It ensures that future practitioners are not only clinically competent but also ethically grounded, culturally sensitive, and committed to the dignity, rights, and well-being of all individuals. Graduates should be able to demonstrate core competencies in bioethics, including ethical reasoning, cultural sensitivity, and commitment to humanistic and socially accountable care. Institutions should be able to demonstrate this inclusion through clearly defined learning outcomes and appropriate assessment strategies integrated across the curriculum [1–3].
  2. Bioethics should be explicitly included in schools’ values and should be addressed in schools’ vision and mission statement for the health professional curricula. Statements should highlight that the ethical education of learners is central to schools’ educational purpose and institutional identity, with the aim of supporting the development of agreed core competencies in areas such as ethical reasoning, professionalism, and respect for human dignity. Institutions should be able to demonstrate alignment between these statements and curricular design, teaching, and assessment practices [4,5].
  3. The learning outcomes related to bioethics should be clearly articulated, prioritized, and aligned with global standards. These outcomes should be defined at undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing professional development levels, and expressed in terms that are measurable, observable, and assessable. This will ensure that bioethical competence is rigorously and systematically evaluated. The objective is that students develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for ethically grounded practice [6-8].
  4. Emerging and underrepresented areas of bioethics should be identified, analyzed, and addressed within the curriculum. These areas include, but are not limited to, global health equity, planetary health and climate ethics, digital health and artificial intelligence, and issues of equity and justice in access to care. This inclusion should be reflected through clearly articulated learning outcomes and appropriate educational activities, preparing learners for these evolving challenges that are crucial to shaping the future of ethical, inclusive, and socially accountable health care [9,10].
  5. Cultural, social, spiritual, and contextual sensitivity are vital in bioethics education. Although core universal principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice provide a global foundation, curricula should also remain responsive to regional traditions, social norms, and cultural values, thereby promoting inclusivity while safeguarding human dignity. This responsiveness should be reflected through clearly articulated learning outcomes and appropriate teaching and learning activities that enable learners to engage respectfully with diversity and apply ethical principles across varied cultural and contextual settings. The objective is to foster inclusivity, nurture respect for diversity, and value global perspectives. [11,12].
  6. The teaching methods in bioethics should be evidence-based and aligned with expected curriculum outcomes. They should also be diverse, interactive, learner-centered, and reflect the application of theory to practice. Approaches such as case-based learning, small-group discussion, simulation, reflective writing, narrative medicine, arts-based learning, and experiential community engagement should be systematically adopted to ensure that learners internalize bioethical principles through lived and applied experiences. Teaching and learning methods should be explicitly aligned with the learning outcomes articulated in Recommendation 3. [13-17].
  7. The value of interprofessional and interdisciplinary education in bioethics should be prioritized. As ethical issues transcend professional boundaries, health professions education programmes should provide planned interprofessional bioethics learning opportunities in which learners are brought together through shared educational activities to deliberate, reflect, and collaborate on their shared moral responsibilities. [18-20].
  8. The assessment of bioethics-related learning outcomes should be systematic, valid, reliable, feasible, and embedded within both formative and summative frameworks. Assessment should evaluate not only factual recall but also ethical reasoning, empathy, reflective capacity, and the ability to act with integrity under conditions of uncertainty. It should be designed and implemented with rigor and priority while aligning with current innovations in assessment as well as with the learning outcomes defined in Recommendation 3. [6, 21,22].
  9. A programme of faculty development is indispensable to the sustainability of bioethics education. Accordingly, health professions education programmes should ensure the provision of faculty development in bioethics through structured and planned activities integrated into institutional educational processes. Such faculty development should enable educators to develop the confidence, knowledge, and skills required to teach bioethics and facilitate ethical reflection effectively, thereby preventing fragmented or superficial delivery of bioethics education [23–25].
  10. The introduction of bioethics in the curriculum should be monitored, evaluated, and included in accreditation procedures. This requires the establishment of mechanisms for oversight, evaluation, quality assurance, and accountability. Regulatory bodies and institutional governance should be held responsible to ensure that bioethics is meaningfully and sustainably integrated into curricula, preventing its marginalization in overcrowded programs. [6,26].
  11. Scholarship and research in bioethics and its educational practice should be encouraged and supported by institutions. Bioethics should not only be taught but also actively studied and advanced as a discipline, by providing opportunities for introduction and evaluation of innovative educational approaches, systematic inquiry into ethical dilemmas across diverse contexts, and the wide dissemination of best practices through conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and academic networks by learners and educators. [27,28].
  12. The challenges of integrating bioethics in the curriculum should be acknowledged by institutions, openly discussing and demonstrating strategies to address those through collaborative and innovative solutions. Obstacles, namely time constraints, curricular overload, and competing priorities, should be systematically overcome through creative integration, prioritization, and sustained institutional commitment to ensure that bioethics is not relegated to the margins. [29-31].
  13. The shared roles and responsibilities of multiple stakeholders should be recognized to ensure active participation, accountability, and mutual respect. These stakeholders should include, but not be limited to, educators, learners, patients, families, communities, regulators, and policymakers and should be involved in the design, delivery, and review of bioethics education. This will ensure a collective dialogue and collaboration, including the possible sharing of results. [32-35].
  14. Consideration should be given to the impact of Artificial Intelligence on Recommendations 1-13 above, in relation to faculty development, curriculum development, scholarship, and research.

References

  1. González-Blázquez, F. J., Ruiz-Hontangas, A., & López-Mora, C. (2024). Bioethical knowledge in students and health professionals: a systematic review. Frontiers in Medicine, 11, 1252386.
  2. Ngan, O. M. Y., & Sim, J. H. (2021). Evolution of bioethics education in the medical programme: a tale of two medical schools. International Journal of Ethics Education, 6(1), 37-50.
  3. Tuohy, B., Lee, L. M., Strand, N., Eldakar-Hein, S., & Gadra, E. (2024). What Does “Bioethics” Mean? Education, Training, and Shaping the Future of Our Field. The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(9), 35-38.
  4. Nunes, R., Duarte, I., Santos, C., & Rego, G. (2015). Education for values and bioethics. Springerplus, 4(1), 45.
  5. Giubilini, A., Milnes, S., & Savulescu, J. (2016). The medical ethics curriculum in medical schools: present and future. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 27(2), 129-145.
  6. Avci, E. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of bioethics education through quality standards and indicators. International Journal of Ethics Education, 7(1), 5-19.
  7. Howard, F., McKneally, M. F., & Levin, A. V. (2010). Integrating bioethics into postgraduate medical education: the University of Toronto model. Academic Medicine, 85(6), 1035-1040.
  8. Wiles, L. K., Murray, C. M., Baker, A., Berndt, A., & Boshoff, K. (2016). Ethics education in allied health: a systematic review of learning outcomes for entry-level students.  Humanities and Social Sciences, 4, (2-1), 13-24.
  9. Missoni, E. (2024). Global health, planetary health, One Health: conceptual and ethical challenges and concerns. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 45(3), 241-250.
  10. Grimaud, L. M., & Gathu, C. Integrating Artificial Intelligence Ethics Education into the Undergraduate Medical Curriculum-a Scoping Review. JMIR Medical Education (PREPRINT).
  11. Turner, L. (2005). From the local to the global: Bioethics and the concept of culture. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 30(3), 305-320.
  12. Elamin, M. O. I. (2024). Religious Approaches to Bioethical Reasoning: Bridging Values and Ethics. International Journal of Religion, 5(12), 886-898.
  13. Choe, K., Park, S., & Yoo, S. Y. (2014). Effects of constructivist teaching methods on bioethics education for nursing students: a quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 848-853.
  14. Kedraka, K., & Kourkoutas, Y. (2018). Debates in Teaching Bioethics. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 7(1), 32-41.
  15. Aleksandrova-Yankulovska, S. (2016). An innovative approach to teaching bioethics in management of healthcare. Nursing Ethics, 23(2), 167-175.
  16. Spencer, S. P., Lauden, S., Wilson, S., Philip, A., Kasick, R., Mahan, J. D., & Fernandes, A. K. (2022). Meeting the challenge of teaching bioethics: a successful residency curricula utilizing Team-Based Learning. Annals of Medicine, 54(1), 359-368.
  17. Downie, R., & Clarkeburn, H. (2005). Approaches to the teaching of bioethics and professional ethics in undergraduate courses. Bioscience Education, 5(1), 1-9.
  18. Iltis, A. S. (2006). Look who’s talking: the interdisciplinarity of bioethics and the implications for bioethics education. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31(6), 629-641.
  19. Sedova, N. N. (2023). Interdisciplinary connections in the teaching of bioethics. Bioethics Journal, 16(2), 3-7.
  20. Welie, J. V. (2022). Interdisciplinary Challenges to Inter Professional Practice. In The Bridge Between Bioethics and Medical Practice: Medical Professionalism (pp. 289-314). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  21. Chowning, J. T., Griswold, J. C., Kovarik, D. N., & Collins, L. J. (2012). Fostering critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills through bioethics education. PloS one, 7(5), e36791.
  22. Esquerda, M., Pifarré, J., Roig, H., Busquets, E., Yuguero, O., & Viñas, J. (2018). Assessing bioethics education: Teaching to be virtuous doctors or just doctors with practical ethical skills. Atencion Primaria, 51(2), 99-104.
  23. Shallal, T. M., Alkhateeb, N. E., & Al-Dabbagh, A. (2023). Virtual faculty development program in bioethics evaluated by Kirkpatrick model: A unique opportunity. PloS one, 18(10), e0293008.
  24. D’Souza, R. F., Mathew, M., D’Souza, D. S., & Palatty, P. (2018). Novel horizontal and vertical integrated bioethics curriculum for medical courses. Medical Teacher, 40(6), 573-577.
  25. Carrese, J. A., Malek, J., Watson, K., Lehmann, L. S., Green, M. J., McCullough, L. B et al (2015). The essential role of medical ethics education in achieving professionalism: the Romanell Report. Academic Medicine, 90(6), 744-752.
  26. Bruneau, T. C. (2024). Oversight, accountability, and effectiveness. In Research Handbook on Civil–Military Relations (pp. 171-183. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  27. Mathews, D. J., Hester, D. M., Kahn, J., McGuire, A., McKinney Jr, R., Meador, K t al (2016). A conceptual model for the translation of bioethics research and scholarship. Hastings Center Report, 46(5), 34-39.
  28. Conner, L. (2008). The importance of knowledge development in bioethics education. In Darryl Macer (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Bioethics Education (pp.  1-8), UNESCO Bangkok.
  29. Stolper, M., Molewijk, B., & Widdershoven, G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 45.
  30. Loewy, E. H. (2003). Education, practice and bioethics: growing barriers to ethical practice. Health Care Analysis, 11(2), 171-179. 
  31. Mashayekhi, J., Mafinejad, M. K., Changiz, T., Moosapour, H., Salari, P., Nedjat, S., & Larijani, B. (2021). Exploring medical ethics’ implementation challenges: A qualitative study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, Feb 27:10, 66. 
  32. Zacharoff, K. L. (2024). Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders. In Pain, Drugs, and Ethics (pp. 47-64). Springer International Publishing.
  33. Conradie, E. H., Anderson, D. E., Fransman, W. O., Swanepoel, A. C., Thobela, M. S., Staunton, C et al (2025). Medical biorepositories of South Africa: establishing a medical biorepository network in South Africa to advance health research. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 23(5), 396-403.
  34. Sayamov, Y. N. (2021). Bioethics in international relations. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 15(1-3).
  35. Rivas Flores, F. J., Alonso Fernández, M., Busquets Alibés, E., Domingo Moratalla, T., Júdez Gutiérrez, F. J., Triviño Caballero, R., & Feito Grande, L. (2025). Deliberation in bioethics education: a literature scoping review. International Journal of Ethics Education, 10(1), 177-204.