RubySoho
Winston
Re-evaluating The Hippocratic Oath
October 27th 2008 11:02
I love The BBC Online. Oh sometimes they have publish pointless, irrelevant stories like this one, but just like the people that publish them, no publication is perfect and I get my news from the BBC more often than anyone else and sometimes they publish general interest articles that I'm glad to have read.
On Sunday they published an essay on the Hippocratic Oath by British medical ethicist Dr Michael Sokol. The article begins by giving a little background on Hippocrates and the Oath:
The Oath starts: "I swear by Apollo the physician and by Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea... to bring the following oath to fulfilment."
Apollo, the god of healing, fell in love with a human, Coronis.
In his absence, Apollo sent a white crow to look after her.
When the crow informed Apollo that Coronis loved another man, Apollo's rage turned the crow black.
To avenge her brother, Apollo's sister shot Coronis with an arrow and, as she lay dying, Coronis told Apollo that she was bearing his child.
Although Apollo could not save Coronis, he rescued the unborn child, Asclepius.
Hygieia, the goddess of health, and Panacea, the goddess of cures, are the daughters of Asclepius.
According to legend, Hippocrates was a descendant of one of Asclepius' sons.
Okay now that's out of the way let's get down to business. What exactly is the Hippocratic Oath and why do doctors still swear by it today?:
The Oath continues: "And I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from what is to their harm and injustice I will keep them."
In other words, doctors should act in the best interests of their patients, and when unjust circumstances arise - for instance, a certain life-prolonging drug may not be available on the NHS - they should strive to correct the injustice harming their patients.
And this is where things start to get interesting. For those who may be unaware the Hippocratic Oath has long being thought to warn against involvement in euthanasia and abortion. However modern historians and experts are now disputing this:
The next part seemingly concerns euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, saying: "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel."
Two leading scholars of the Oath, Littre and Miles, have however suggested that this passage alludes to the then common practice of using doctors as skilled political assassins.
Steven Miles notes: "Fear of the physician-poisoner may be traced very close to the time of the Oath."
Okay, so no clear cut mention of euthanasia (the term, meaning 'easeful death' was actually coined a century later), but killing people for money, not so good. I'm sure we can all dig that:
The text continues: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."
This passage is often interpreted as a rejection of abortion.
However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.
As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself.
Note, Sokol clearly states that abortion was legal at the time, and one would presume widely practised given that Hippocrates thought to mention it. Why would a doctor warn other doctors against performing procedures that were perfectly legal and commonplace? The most common translation of the text puts it thus:
I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.
Whoa Nelly! Now that's one hell of a misquote! There is an enormous difference between objecting to a pessuary and condemning abortion altogether. If he was condemning all abortions would he not have said so more clearly? From this original text it really does appear that Hippocrates was simply objecting to a particular method of abortion which could prove to be dangerous to the woman having the procedure. It seems rather unfortunate that a man who obviously cared for the health of his patients could have his words twisted to mean something else altogether.
I guess therin lies the danger of trying to live by the exact words of a text that was written thousands of years ago. It was a different time, a different place, a different language. Can we ever really know exactly what Hippocrates was referring to in all the points he made? Maybe we would do better to simply take his primary objective to heart- namely that doctors are always to act in the best interests of their patients?
On Sunday they published an essay on the Hippocratic Oath by British medical ethicist Dr Michael Sokol. The article begins by giving a little background on Hippocrates and the Oath:
The Oath starts: "I swear by Apollo the physician and by Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea... to bring the following oath to fulfilment."
Apollo, the god of healing, fell in love with a human, Coronis.
In his absence, Apollo sent a white crow to look after her.
When the crow informed Apollo that Coronis loved another man, Apollo's rage turned the crow black.
To avenge her brother, Apollo's sister shot Coronis with an arrow and, as she lay dying, Coronis told Apollo that she was bearing his child.
Although Apollo could not save Coronis, he rescued the unborn child, Asclepius.
Hygieia, the goddess of health, and Panacea, the goddess of cures, are the daughters of Asclepius.
According to legend, Hippocrates was a descendant of one of Asclepius' sons.
the man himself
Okay now that's out of the way let's get down to business. What exactly is the Hippocratic Oath and why do doctors still swear by it today?:
The Oath continues: "And I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from what is to their harm and injustice I will keep them."
In other words, doctors should act in the best interests of their patients, and when unjust circumstances arise - for instance, a certain life-prolonging drug may not be available on the NHS - they should strive to correct the injustice harming their patients.
And this is where things start to get interesting. For those who may be unaware the Hippocratic Oath has long being thought to warn against involvement in euthanasia and abortion. However modern historians and experts are now disputing this:
The next part seemingly concerns euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, saying: "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel."
Two leading scholars of the Oath, Littre and Miles, have however suggested that this passage alludes to the then common practice of using doctors as skilled political assassins.
Steven Miles notes: "Fear of the physician-poisoner may be traced very close to the time of the Oath."
Okay, so no clear cut mention of euthanasia (the term, meaning 'easeful death' was actually coined a century later), but killing people for money, not so good. I'm sure we can all dig that:
The text continues: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."
This passage is often interpreted as a rejection of abortion.
However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.
As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself.
Note, Sokol clearly states that abortion was legal at the time, and one would presume widely practised given that Hippocrates thought to mention it. Why would a doctor warn other doctors against performing procedures that were perfectly legal and commonplace? The most common translation of the text puts it thus:
I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.
Whoa Nelly! Now that's one hell of a misquote! There is an enormous difference between objecting to a pessuary and condemning abortion altogether. If he was condemning all abortions would he not have said so more clearly? From this original text it really does appear that Hippocrates was simply objecting to a particular method of abortion which could prove to be dangerous to the woman having the procedure. It seems rather unfortunate that a man who obviously cared for the health of his patients could have his words twisted to mean something else altogether.
I guess therin lies the danger of trying to live by the exact words of a text that was written thousands of years ago. It was a different time, a different place, a different language. Can we ever really know exactly what Hippocrates was referring to in all the points he made? Maybe we would do better to simply take his primary objective to heart- namely that doctors are always to act in the best interests of their patients?
| 89 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
its all about the context . . .
i like this new trend of going back to the original versions of old texts to deduce their meaning . . . so much trouble has been caused by inaccurate translations, each revision distorts the original intentions because they are making copies of copies and inserting their own morals by re-wording it
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
That's quite a compliment! And just like the BBC I will admit that i too have been known to post the odd pointless article....but I guess we all stray from the path once in a while.
Hi Morgan,
I agree! It was surprising to read this given that for so long the Hippocratic Oath was used by opponents to euthanasia and abortion to back up their case that doctors should not administer either.
And yep, it's the multiple translations and modifications that seem to get us into trouble when it comes to many of these ancient texts.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
A great piece by the BBC, though... it's funny how 'modern' the Oath feels... though people use it against euthanasia and abortion, it seems like more of a common sense guide, at a time when there were probably a lot of charlatans out there.
I think more professions could use an 'Oath'...
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i just read this on a post entitled "Sorry If I Do Not Read Your Blogs" hahaha
oh the irony . . .
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Actually my favourite is this:
Bahahahahaha!
Oh sweet lords of irony! Your cups do runneth over.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity