1. Case presentation |
The case is presented with all necessary and relevant pieces of information to base the deliberation. |
The case is presented with pieces of information that are neither relevant nor necessary for deliberation. |
There is presentation of very general and confusing pieces of information necessary for deliberation. |
There is no presentation of pieces of information that are consequential for deliberation on the case. |
2. Clarification of doubts |
The facts of the case are clarified and doubts are presented contributing to the clarification of the relevant facts about the case. |
Facts and/or doubts presented are not fully consequential to clarify relevant facts about the case. |
Facts and/or doubts are presented, but these do not imply the clarification of relevant facts. |
There is no presentation of doubts for clarifying relevant facts. |
3. Identification of problems and conflicting values. |
The problems with their respective bioethical values and principles in conflict are identified, presenting a brief and coherent analysis of each of them. Finally, an issue is selected for deliberation. |
Ethical problems are identified, but do not specify conflicting bioethical values and principles. |
Only one of the ethical problems is identified, without specifying the bioethical values and principles in conflict. |
Ethical problems and conflicting values cannot be identified. |
4. Deliberation, proposals for lines of action |
The deliberation is carried out presenting an argued and reasoned analysis of the possible lines of action. |
The deliberation is carried out presenting an incomplete analysis, since not all possible lines of action are addressed, or the arguments and reasoning are weak. A problem considered important is selected. |
The deliberation is carried out presenting an incomplete analysis, since not all possible lines of action are addressed, or these lines of action are not argued nor properly based. A relevant problem is not selected. |
Neither deliberation nor analysis of problems is carried out. A problem is not selected. |
5. Optimized line of action |
The analysis of the line of action is prudent and respects to a greater degree and number the values at stake, preserving the moral reference system. |
The analysis of the line of action does not acquire argumentation in its reflection, but does not violate the values at stake nor the moral reference system. |
The analysis of the line of action is not the most sensible, however, it does not totally violate the values at stake nor the moral reference system. |
The analysis of the line of action is not sensible, since it does not respect to a greater degree and number the values at stake. It also does not respect the moral reference system. |
6. Proof of legality |
The verification or reasoned comparison is carried out, evincing with the aspects and laws in force that the proposed solution is governed by the legal framework. |
The verification is carried out using only some aspects and laws to prove that the proposed solution is adequate or contrary to the legal framework. |
The verification is performed with poor and confusing reasoning. Not clear whether the proposed solution is adequate or contrary to the legal framework. |
There is no reasoning to prove that the proposed solution is governed or not by the legal framework. |