{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023746701846965697, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.118279569892473, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[THE FORMS OF DELIBERATION INVOLVED IN THE FIELD OF BIOETHICS: TECHNIQUE DELIBERATION AND ETHICS DELIBERATION].

In this article the author examines the formulation of the problem of new technologies with their ethical limits and legal. To do this, in a first it is d'assess the contribuitions of the two most important contemporary philosophers who have treated this subject: Jürgen Habermas and Ronald Dworkin, while trying to put them into dialog with the one who has been one of the founders of l'classic ethics: Aristotle. Then, it tries to answer the question of how could we understand this notion that Dworkin nome "moral dislocation" between the random and the choice or well, as the appointed Habermas, "l'extension of the contingency". Finally, we questioned how the Aristotelian distinction between the technical deliberation and deliberative ethical-moral can contribute to a better understanding of the questions on the decisions and choices that will make the moral agents (such as patients or the judges), as well as those relating to the type of deliberation technique chosen by the doctor or by the health professional.