The Hippocratic Oath (not Hypocritic)

[AzureWolf]

[font=Georgia][color=blue]The Hippocratic Oath was an oath that doctors took upon entering the discipline of medicine. It's been a time-honored tradition that has been upheld by doctors and their apprentices. In recent times, however, the Hippocratic Oath is only an optional oath doctors can take upon graduation. It's also worth noting that 100% of the medical schools in the US offer this option today.[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]So, what exactly does the Hippocratic Oath say? [QUOTE][i][size=1]From [/size][/i][url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html"][size=1]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html[/size][/url][size=1]:[/size][/color][/font]
[b][size=1]The Hippocratic Oath, as Written by Hippocrates:[/size][/b]
[font=Arial][size=1]I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.[/size][/font][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][font=Arial][color=#000000][i][size=1]From [/size][/i][url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html"][i][size=1]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html[/size][/i][/url][/color][/font][/color][/font]
[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][font=Arial][size=1][color=#000000][b]Most Popular Modern Oath, Lasagna's Version:[/b][/color][/size][/font][/color][/font]
[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff][font=Arial][size=1][color=#000000]I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] To put it simply, the Hippocratic Oath contains a "code of ethics" that a doctor must comply with. Now, here are some points I'm curious to hear about_:[/color][/font]
[list]
[*][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Do you think the original Hippocratic Oath has any meaning left today? Do you think the revised version has meaning?[/color][/font]
[*][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Theological references are made in both versions. Do you think these are vital/necessary, or creating a bias against those who do not believe in God?[/color][/font]
[*][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]How a doctor "relieves" the sick isn't clear. Does that mean putting someone to rest is within the capabilities of a doctor? Should it be?[/color][/font]
[*][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]The abortion part of the original has been removed in the revised edition. Comments?[/color][/font]
[*][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]I thought it was interesting how the Oath contains a humanistic part (about treating a human, not a disease), since most people stereotype Science as a cold, calculated thing.[/color][/font]
[/list][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Those are the points I found the most interest in. However, feel free to comment about whatever aspect of the Hippocratic Oath you want.[/color][/font]

[TheShinje]

[font=Book Antiqua][color=black][QUOTE=AzureWolf][/color][/font]
[font=Book Antiqua][color=black][color=blue]Theological references are made in both versions. Do you think these are vital/necessary, or creating a bias against those who do not believe in God?[/color] [/QUOTE][/color][/font]

[font=Century Gothic][size=2]The Theological references in the revised Hypocratic oath simply state "I must not play at God."[/size][/font]


[font=Century Gothic][size=2]This simply means that the doctor should not play God, and is therefore not an actual reference to deity, simply an oath that forbids doctors to take a [i]god-like role [/i]as far as their paitents are concerned.;) [/size][/font]

[MissWem]

I really couldn't be bothered looking into both of them into great depth...however what caught my eye and much to my relief was that the revised version had changed the part about abortion,from not allowing it to allowing it.

Other than that, all I knew about it was that it was that the Doctor can do anything but harm his patients. But I don't see anything wrong with the oath, it's kinda cool...even though I don't believe in God, but I isn't it more out of respect to the ancestors than a belief?

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Do you think the original Hippocratic Oath has any meaning left today? Do you think the revised version has meaning?[/font]
[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=green]I think that the revised, and more politically correct, modern version does have some bearing on modern medicine.

If a medical professional is true to his or her word, the modern Hippocratic oath will make sure that they practice ethically acceptable medicine.

However, with the evolution of the medical profession to include such people as plastic surgeons and abortion doctors, I feel that the oath has lost it?s meaning. Plastic Surgery is an unnecessary operation, which carries only health risks and extremely limited superficial gains. Abortion is a procedure, when carried out unnecessarily, kills a human being. I find flaw with those who argue that ?merely a fetus? is aborted, since that fetus would have grown into a fully competent adult. Abortion is little more than doctor assisted infanticide. These procedures violate the very definition of what it means to be a doctor, as defined by the oath.

In the end, the bearing of the modern Hippocratic oath is limited at best. For those doctors who follow it, the oath provides guidelines for treatment of their patients. For those who do not, it merely affirms their hypocrisy.[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]Theological references are made in both versions. Do you think these are vital/necessary, or creating a bias against those who do not believe in God?[/color'][/font][/quote]

[color=green]I think that these references to ?God? are merely a traditional aspect of the oath. It is doubtful that anyone would refuse to take the oath based on his or her religious views. If someone does have an aversion to pledging to ?God? they should pledge on their honor or their word, whichever they choose.

I certainly wouldn?t want to be treated by a doctor who hadn?t taken the oath?[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]How a doctor "relieves" the sick isn't clear. Does that mean putting someone to rest is within the capabilities of a doctor? Should it be?[/color'][/font][/quote]

[color=green]The question here is a deeply personal one. As a doctor, you?re responsible for helping people. There does come a point where patients in extreme pain or with terminal diseases may wish to kill themselves rather than suffer drawn out and painful deaths.

As a doctor, one would be faced with a very difficult choice. Are you serving the greater good and helping the patient by killing them? Regardless of the patient?s opinion, the decision is yours to make.

I feel that doctors should not be able to kill patients by administering lethal medication or by any other means. If a patient wishes to kill herself, that is her prerogative. They may refuse care or take their life by any means they feel appropriate.

This issue is further complicated by cases where the person in question is in a coma or is mentally retarded. In these cases, I believe that the person should be kept alive by the doctor unless a living will has been written that expresses otherwise. As the person in question is not mentally alert, he isn?t unhappy about his current situation. Killing this person would remove all chances, however remote, of recovery.[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]The abortion part of the original has been removed in the revised edition. Comments?[/color'][/font][/quote]

[color=green]Abortion is killing a child. Even though a fetus may not be fully developed or a sentient being yet, it will develop into a completely capable adult. You are killing that adult by aborting the fetus.

Only in cases where the mother?s health is at stake should an abortion take place.

However, I don?t want to impose this view on anyone. I would never have to make the terrible choice that is abortion and don?t feel it is my right to take away a woman?s right to choose. I?d just recommend that she think long and hard about the consequences of her actions.[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]I thought it was interesting how the Oath contains a humanistic part (about treating a human, not a disease), since most people stereotype Science as a cold, calculated thing.[/color'][/font][/quote]

[color=green]I think that this portion of the Hippocratic Oath is the most relevant today.

With all of our modern technology, advanced drugs and state of the art medical procedures, it can be easy to forget about the patient. Patients need to be treated with care and respect; their dignity preserved. What good is it to heal a body if you break the mind in the process?

[center]--- --- --- --- ---[/center]

Those are my thoughts on the Hippocratic Oath as it stands today. Despite it?s shortcomings, I think the Oath is a medical tradition that ensures quality medical care. It is something that needs to be preserved and followed closely by all medical professionals.

After all, would you want to be treated by a doctor who hadn?t taken it?[/color]

[Zephyr]

In truth I believe that neither oath has as much meaning anymore as most people would like to believe. I think that the Hippocratic Oath which most doctor's follow is more of an unspoken series or rules. Most are covered in the "official" version, but the others are based on the morals of society (scary thought, right?), and as a result are harder to break then the version Azure listed.

Of course, I could just be hoping there is still some good in society.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]When you get down to it, there are few things less dangerous than an indifferent doctor.

Do you think the original Hippocratic Oath has any meaning left today? Do you think the revised version has meaning?

I think the main subject of the Hippocratic Oath is that a doctor must treat his patients with respect, empathy, and to understand that they are people, not charts or statistics. It also seems to say, "If some one is putting their life into your hands, don't be swayed by shame or bias when you need to make decisions concerning their wellfair."

Theological references are made in both versions. Do you think these are vital/necessary, or creating a bias against those who do not believe in God?

I think it is basically saying that a doctor should not take on the role of a diety who is able to magically cure the sick. He or she may need assistance in helping their patient and pride is not important in the least when some one's life is on the line.

How a doctor "relieves" the sick isn't clear. Does that mean putting someone to rest is within the capabilities of a doctor? Should it be?

I believe there was a doctor who strongly believed in giving lethal injections to those who wanted them. My English teacher was telling us about how he publicly (as in on TV) showed himself, well, killing an individual in this manner. He had documents concerning the same course of action towards numerous individuals. He was arrested and jailed for life, I do believe.
If any one has further information on this topic, I would be highly interested in it.

However, to get back on track, I don't think a doctor should be allowed or inclined to help his patients "pass on". If there is something you can do to save a person's life, no matter how depressed they are, then you should strive for it. If you kill yourself (or similarly, have some one kill you) you will never know how happy you could have been again. And most people leave depression behind after a few months, or even a few years.
If some one is in pain, a doctor's practice, as I see it, should revolve around getting rid of the pain, while keeping the patient alive. The individual has a duty to her family and friends to stay alive as long as she can, and the doctor's duty is to cure her of her ailments. (this also applies to men, of course)

The abortion part of the original has been removed in the revised edition. Comments?

I think this is a very important alteration, as it acknowledges the fact that women should be free to choose what happens with their bodies. It shows the growth of respect for women, and the acknowledgement that they are equal to men; a doctor has no business denying a woman an abortion, in my opinion.

I thought it was interesting how the Oath contains a humanistic part (about treating a human, not a disease), since most people stereotype Science as a cold, calculated thing.

I was delighted to read this. Though most patients probably end up being seen as a chart or statistic, they are people. They have families and friends. However, a doctor should be detached to an extent; how else will they make fully rational decisions?


Very interesting topic, Azure. I don't know why I didn't read it until just now...[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]