"Hippocratic Oath Adapts"
Nearly two years ago, I wrote a series of posts (here, here, here, and here) and a column ("Harm Done," NRO) about the ongoing deconstruction of the Hippocratic Oath and its devolution into meaningless pabulum in a society that increasingly embraces relativism as it rejects principles and firm concepts of right and wrong. Now, the LA Times has discovered the trend in a column, byline Elena Conis. From her piece:
The Hippocratic oath was penned 2,400 years ago by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates who, sensibly, instructed doctors to treat patients to the best of their ability and respect each patient's privacy. But his professional guidelines also included lesser-known details: The oath advises doctors to avoid sexual relations with patients, treat their teachers as they would members of their own family and teach the art of medicine to the next generation "without fee." It also obliges doctors not to perform surgery, abortions or euthanasia.Rather than being cause for concern, Conis celebrates:
...[A]bout one-fourth of all schools now opt to write their own [oaths]. The custom oaths do away with much of Hippocrates' more controversial material [like killing patients] but most retain his pledge of confidentiality. They also add provisions that Hippocrates left out: Many prohibit racism, for one, and other kinds of discrimination. Few, curiously, prohibit sexual relations with patients.When I tell lay audiences that most doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath, which clears the way to permit some to engage in (now formerly) unprofessional acts (e.g., sex with patients) and still call themselves ethical, they are stunned and appalled. They know that the Oath was one of their best protections against abuse. Too bad Conis can't understand that simple truth and apparently embraces the ongoing deconstruction of professionalism that is afflicting our society in medicine, science, law, journalism, academia, and other areas of important endeavor.
The act of pledge-taking in medicine seems poised to last, though the original content of Hippocrates' oath appears unlikely to endure. Which may be for the best. To date, scholars can't uniformly agree that Hippocrates even wrote the oath attributed to him. Some suspect it was written by one of the Pythagoreans, the ancient Greek philosophers whose lasting legacy -- geometry -- is the target of complaints issued by high school students, not doctors.
Labels: Hippocratic Oath
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:23 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
The original oath was poetic and covered all the basics; adding stipulations against racism was good but not necessary given the original wording of the oath. Why do they even bother with an oath anymore if they're going to water it down to the point where it's just a formality?
Isn't oath-taking in itself an archic device? Does modern society still put any kind of importance on oath-taking?
Forgive my ignorance, but when you say that most doctors don't take the Oath, do you mean that they don't take THE Oath, or take any Oath at all? I don't see what's so bad about tweaking and modernizing the Oath if the substance remains.
On a more cynical level...if a doctor needs an Oath to prevent him from doing harm to a patient, then I wouldn't want him as my doctor.
Royale-
Hi again!
Consider the stress level of the medical profession. We've got nursing shortages, there's the trauma of losing patients, the temptation of easily available drugs, etc. Doctors have a high suicide rate for a reson.
(I'll pull up the stats if anybody wants me to.)
At the time the original Oath was enacted, making the pledge was like signing a contract - you don't follow your oath and the community could stone you, depending on the community. I personally believe that violating a sacred oath *will* come back to haunt you, but that's my opinion. But if oaths were taken more seriously these days, and meant something more than lip-service, think of what weighing the pros of committing a wrong (selling perscriptions to patients who use the drugs to get high instead of for legitimate reasons) against the cons of breaking an oath (being shunned by the community, the permanent loss of one's license nation-wide, etc.) might do for a doctor whose stress is too high and who's thinking of taking an easy path to covering his pain up. Is it possible that instead of letting himself be pushed to the point of falling apart (and doing injury to patients in the process), he might seek help?
A doctor might not need an Oath to prevent him from doing harm, but I think that it can help him remember right and wrong when he starts feeling burn-out.
I took the oath upon my graduation, but given the tendency to "improve" upon the ancient wisdom, one wonders why anyone would bother to take the oath today. Perhaps we have a hard time today understanding the meaning of taking an oath in ancient times. To pledge oneself was to stake one's honor (perhaps another concept hard to appreciate today) or life upon fulfilling the pledge or oath. Promises don't carry the same gravity today. Perhaps continuing to take the oath (modified) is just a nostalgic act. Very sad.
About the only thing we're not supposed to do, under today's medical ethics, is have sex with patients. Approval of that may follow abortion, assisting "suicide," though.
There's a lot of us out here holding the line as best as we can.
If any doctors read this, how much of a concern is this (i.e., redefining the Oath, abortion, assisted suicide) to the medical professionals?
Are doctors generally outraged? Or do their views and practices tend to follow that of the nations?
Take abortion for example, my guess is that most doctors, even if pro-choice, would be appauled at the idea of performing an abortion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home