Once again, the topics of transhumanism and global bioethics gain relevance in the articles of this issue, which presents serious reflections on the possibility of altering the health conditions of people, from interventions in their genetic material to the food they consume.

We present here a first article by Pablo de Robina, who takes up the foundations of the argument on the human status of the embryo and does so based on biological, legal, anthropological, and ontological analysis.

The author affirms, in the first place, that from the moment of fertilization there is a cellular unit that will develop with the passage of time, but whose belonging is indisputable to the human species and that, therefore, from the beginning, the embryo is already an individual belonging to that species. Secondly, from the legal approach, the complexity of the debate is recognized, since not all countries recognize human life from the moment of fertilization or the embryo as a person. However, the author proposes that respect for the embryo can be based on two legal documents of international value: the first is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the second, the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which make it clear that laws should always protect the embryo.

Thirdly, from the anthropological argumentation, it is affirmed that the embryo is already a person and from its beginnings it has all its potential development, in some way, current and present in its first days. Furthermore, the author resorts to the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents to argue how, although it lacks human form, the embryo is already a person, and the form will unfold in due time. In this sense he rejects the functionalist thesis.

Finally, the ontological status of the embryo is exposed in these pages from the acceptance and recognition of its spiritual dimension that does not admit biological reductionism and that makes it a being open to transcendence.

The second article we published, by Mr. Pérez Berlanga, is a very novel proposal that considers the relationship between the ultra-processed food and sugared beverages industry and global bioethics. This is because the former cause non-communicable diseases that cause serious and irreversible damage to people both locally and globally, and for this reason they should require a bioethical analysis and the application of the principles of global bioethics in their production and consumption processes.

Among the health effects that ultra-processed foods and sugary beverages cause, we can find from dermatological problems due to hypersensitivity to their components, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, obesity, overweight, to respiratory diseases. This is due to the high amounts of sugars, fats, salt, and additives involved in their production, storage, and distribution.

For the author, these problems extend to the global context and, therefore, ethical regulatory principles should be included in these industries, taking as a model those of global bioethics: justice, responsibility, prevention, solidarity, precaution, autonomy, freedom, among others.

The third article presented here, by Dr. Juan Manuel Palomares, sheds light on how to defend the right to breastfeed even in ethically controversial practices such as surrogate motherhood.

After analyzing this practice and its ethical and bioethical implications in the international context, the author defines the importance of the right to breastfeeding, arguing that it is part of the right to adequate food and nutrition, in addition to its relevance in the generation of the emotional bond between mother and child, especially during the first six months of the child’s life.

Breastfeeding, says Dr. Palomares, favors not only the baby’s nutritional intake, but also its full development and well-being. This is why this right, even in the case of surrogacy, must be respected, which would imply an added clause in surrogacy contracts guaranteeing this right up to six months after the baby is born. To strengthen this defense, the author resorts to the bioethical principles of defense and respect for human life and its dignity, justice, solidarity, and subsidiarity.

Roland Chía’s article, on the other hand, recovers the debate on transhumanism, whose aim is to generate posthumans based on the three pillars of this current of thought: super intelligence, super well-being, and super longevity.

Of these three pillars, the last one, super longevity, is addressed more deeply in the article as the author discusses and compares the human being’s desire for immortality by uploading and transferring his synaptic content to a digital machine, as a materialization of his desire not to die.

To analyze this practice, the author analyzes the different conceptions about the notions of body, mind, personal identity; Thus, he states that the postulate on which this transhumanist goal rests is based on a dualistic anthropology where the mind is separated from the body and its material structure, including the brain, while the notion of these concepts from a monistic conception would believe that the person is a union of body and soul and that it is impossible to separate both components, therefore, it would be impossible to transfer the whole person to a digital support because its essence can neither be separated nor reduced to biological-materialistic processes. This last statement is elucidated in the light of the thought of Christian anthropology.

The fifth article brings transhumanism back to the center of the discussion, but now from the approach of its desire for human improvement and enhancement.

Dr. Lílian Santos presents an article that problematizes the regulation of human genome editing for the purpose of improving the human species.

To this end, the author makes a deep and methodical analysis that allows her to detect the issues where transhumanism and global governance on human genome editing converge and proposes a series of principles that should be present in the regulations made in this respect: transparency, justice, social justice, honesty, non-discrimination, solidarity, respect for people, inclusion, ethics in research, etc.

The study sheds light on the role of bioethics in strengthening world governance in the face of the possibility of editing the human genome.

In this issue we also present two bibliographic reviews. The first, by Dr. Ballesta, is also an invitation to reflect on the implications of the absolutization and radicalization of the principle of autonomy, which can even threaten other principles such as beneficence.

The second review by Dr. Jorge Alberto Álvarez Díaz is a successful effort to describe a problem that the author of the book highlighted as a priority in end-of-life issues, namely suicide. Dr. Alvarez facilitates the reading of the book as he underlines how the shift from a scheme where suicide is associated with a psychiatric illness to one where it can be an autonomous decision, represents a paradigm shift in the bioethical approach to dilemmas at the end of human life.