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.