U okviru Univerziteta u Sarajevu egzistiraju dva teološka fakulteta, Fakultet islamskih nauka
i Katolički bogoslovni fakultet. Obje visokoobrazovne institucije dugo vremena nisu bile
u sastavu navedenog sveučilišta, budući da su obitavale isključivo pod okriljem religijskih
institucija. Na navedenim fakultetima izučavaju se, pored teoloških, i svjetovni moduli, te je
primjetno da se polju bioetike daje posebno mjesto kao jednome od neophodnih suvremenih
segmenata odgojno-obrazovnog procesa. Analogno rečenome, u tekstu je načinjena razdioba
studijskih programa, tj. istaknuto je gradiranje znanstvenih i stručnih ciklusa u obrazovnome
procesu, kako na Fakultetu islamskih nauka, gdje se nastava izvodi na dodiplomskom,
diplomskom te doktorskom studiju, tako i na Katoličkom bogoslovnom fakultetu, gdje
je ustaljen integrirani studij teologije, pored kojega je već nekoliko godina još zastupljen
diplomski studij Međureligijski studij i izgradnja mira, koji se provodi u suradnji s Fakultetom
islamskih nauka i Pravoslavnim bogoslovskim fakultetom Sv. Vasilija Ostroškog iz Foče.
Pravoslavni bogoslovski fakultet je zapravo sastavnica Univerziteta u Istočnome Sarajevu, stoga
nije uzet u razmatranje u ovome radu. Autori rada razmatranju bioetičkih problema pristupali
su iz pozicije praktičke filozofije, tj. njene grane etike, koristeći pri tome interdisciplinarni
i pluriperspektivni pristup. Na osnovi silabusa načinjena je analiza bioetičkih problema
primarno iz filozofskog (etičkog) motrišta, analizirani su predmetni udžbenici i literatura.
Naravno, vodilo se računa o radovima nastavnika s ovih institucija, koji su pisani iz polja
bioetike. Bez obzira na različito religijsko fundiranje bioetičkih problema na ova dva fakulteta,
u smislu različitih epistemičkih polazišta islama i kršćanstva, u zaključcima rada ukazano je na
točke zajedničkog ,,bioetičkog“ interesa, ali i razilaženja među njima.Within the University of Sarajevo, there are two theological faculties, the Faculty of
Islamic Studies and the Faculty of Catholic Theology. For a long time, neither one of these
institutions was a constituent of the University since they only existed under the umbrella
of religious institutions. Nevertheless, students at these faculties study both theological and
secular modules. It is noticeable, directly or indirectly, that the study of bioethics represents
one of the most necessary contemporary segments in the educational process, especially in
theological schools. Therefore, the text explains different study programmes offered by the
Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo at all three study levels, i.e. undergraduate, master’s,
and doctoral level. Furthermore, the text also offers information on the available study
programmes at the Faculty of Catholic Theology, namely the integrated study of theology
and the master’s program Interreligious Studies and PeaceBuilding which is implemented in
cooperation with the Faculty of Islamic Studies and the Orthodox Theological Faculty Sv
Vasili Ostroški of Foča (the latter is a constituent of the University of East Sarajevo and for
that reason has not been taken into consideration in this article). It is important to note
that authors approached the bioethical issues strictly from the secular point of view, more
precisely from the field of practical philosophy, that is, its branch of ethics. Precisely for this
reason, and in order to adequately discuss bioethical topics which are secular in nature and
not religious, the authors used an interdisciplinary and multidimensional approach. However,
in accordance with the title of the article, the paper especially focuses on the modules within
which bioethical topics are studied. Accordingly, the analysis of bioethical problems was made
primarily from the philosophical (ethical) point of view, and it was based on the syllabi,
course textbooks, and additional literature. On this occasion, the bioethical publications of
teachers in these two institutions were also reflected on. Regardless of their different religious
approaches to bioethical problems, the conclusions of the paper point to the points of their
common “bioethical” interest as well as the disagreements
