 |
| |
|
|
Lefty Scaevola
|
 |
San Antonio TX USA
Oct 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
Depends on where you are, most likely. Here is the USA they are mostly integrated into one medical proffesion, with law, licensing, and regulation being the same for both, and the methods of education mostly the same. There would be no distiction in the oath now taken (for those with MDs), and said oath would have deleted the now obselete line. The remaining distinction here would be historical, customary, and social (as indicated in the example above). Most of the remaining is irrational, since specialty surgeons are typically viewed by the public as higher class (and much higher income) than general medical doctors. Note that some minor surgical spcialties (like podiatry) still do not require a medical degree in many states. In texas some specialties might be either a MD (or varient thereof, like D.P.M.) or a DO.
Last edited by Lefty Scaevola on 15-01-2004 at 03:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
never mind
Last edited by MrFun on 15-01-2004 at 04:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I think that most medical schools have their own version of the oath. Most of them omit the prohibition of abortion and surgery. Most of them swear the physician to hold the patient's data confidential and to work for the benefit of the patient.
Whether any oath does or does not prohibit the physician from have sexual relations with a patient romantic relations between patient and physician are strictly prohibited in every state. At one time it was accepted that if a patient and physician voluntarily terminated their professional relationship then a romantic relationship could be legal, but recent court rulings have quashed that idea. A physician can not have any romantic or sexual relations with anyone who has ever been his or her patient. This law applies in every state of the union.
Physicians are probably held accountable to the most stringent code of ethics amongst all of the professions. Furthermore the mechanism of enforcement of this code is probably the most authoritarian. Hearings before a board of medicine are conducted without the benefit of legal counsel, nor are the boards held to legal standards of proof. While in theory a board's decision could be appealed in a court of law, there has never been a case in which a board's ruling has been overturned in a court of law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Skywalker:
I'm glad you asked that question....
I'm working on an essay right now along these lines, at least with medical ethics and abortion.
Doctors just cut out what they find inconvenient, and call it the "Hippocratic Oath," whereas the original makes it clear that doctors are not to prescribe medications that cause abortions.
From Agathon's link, which btw is not a poor translation, an argument against the Hippocratic Oath.
"The classical Hippocratic oath is at once largely irrelevant to medical practice while also grossly inadequate to express the duties that we owe to our patients. Think of the key points from each of its eight paragraphs:
Three paragraphs (1, 2, and 8) occupy themselves with the oath or the medical guild, including swearing to gods who are either not relevant or perhaps offensive to one's religion, proposing fee-splitting with your teacher as well as financial support to him or her or their progeny while passing on knowledge only to others in the guild, and again asking for reward or punishment for upholding or disregarding this oath. Little here relates the new physician to his or her patients.
Another two paragraphs (5 and 6) are curios, promising to leave surgery to others (it used to be the barbers) and forswearing sex with your patients or their families. The first is wrong and outmoded, given that surgery has been a core skill in medicine for hundreds of years now, while the second hardly sets a sufficiently high moral standard for our profession.
Only three paragraphs (3, 4, and 7) apply in any serious fashion to what most physicians and laypeople would expect to be the content of a solemn oath at medical school graduation. The first of these suggests giving good advice on diet and keeping patients from harm. The second prohibits both euthanasia and abortion. The third promises patient confidentiality.
Now giving good dietary advice is certainly laudable, but it hardly expresses a comprehensive commitment to provide knowledgeable treatment of all sorts, without performing a sort of biblical exegesis. Keeping patients from harm, by contrast, is a critical concept to any relevant medical oath, as is the confidentiality of patient information. However, many physicians are fully supportive of abortions, and some physicians are sympathetic to aiding in euthanasia for terminally ill patients precisely to "keep them from harm."
To summarize the operational part of the Hippocratic oath, then, all physicians would swear to (1) give good dietary advice, (2) keep the patient from harm, and (3) maintain confidentiality; would probably swear (4) to abjure euthanasia; and might swear (5) to abjure abortion.
The revised oath by Dr. Louis Lasagna, which I am reasonably sure we used at my Harvard Medical School graduation in 1969, contrasts sharply with the uninspiring curios of the Hippocratic oath. Lasagna picked up on many of the major themes of our profession: Do positive good, not just keep from harm. Promote our knowledge and skills for the benefit of the patient. Provide sound advice and guidance to the person and family, not just manipulate the diseased organ systems. Focus on prevention. His oath also specifically includes the important Hippocratic concepts of avoiding harm and keeping confidentiality.
Lasagna's message comes dramatically closer to expressing the mission and complexity of our profession and offers the appropriate breadth and inspiration for the graduation of new physicians as well as for all of our personal renewal from time to time. His oath, or a version of it, is something I did and could swear to. As for the classical Hippocratic oath, I'll think of it every time I am tempted to split fees with my teachers or sleep with my patients."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
"However, many physicians are fully supportive of abortions, and some physicians are sympathetic to aiding in euthanasia for terminally ill patients precisely to "keep them from harm."
Now does this strike you as particularly persuasive evidence that Hippocrates is wrong? First of all, how does abortion keep a woman from harm, and secondly, how can the same be applied to euthanasia? Why not kill all your patients, because in killing them, they will not suffer. All life is suffering of some form, therefore, to kill someone to spare suffering makes little sense.
Just because physicians fully support abortion now, does not change the meaning of Hippocrates' Oath, nor does it justify the current position of physicians.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-01-2004 03:33
|