I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this contract: But powerful forces seek to coerce medical professionals to be complicit in medical killing-or abandon medicine altogether.Ĭornell's Version of the Hippocratic Oath † Many doctors, for example, do not want to participate in abortion, assist in suicide, or be associated with other questionable medical technologies. In addition, government control can politicize medical care, favoring some and not others. Third-party payers, both private and public, can reward physicians for withholding care or providing controversial services. Other developments in the last several decades present challenges to the physician patient relationship. These changes have irrevocably altered the face of medicine, blurring what it means to be a physician, nurse, or other health-care professional. These new procedures distort the traditional goals of medicine, which are saving lives, healing disease, and relieving pain. Some of these new procedures require the destruction of human embryos. 2Ĭonsider the profound changes in law, which have materially impacted medical practice in just the last fifty years:Ī number of other procedures have been introduced into medical practice, including new reproductive technologies, embryonic stem-cell research, and cloning, that many might find objectionable. 1 Meanwhile, bioethicists and others advocate transforming medicine from a healing profession into a technocracy, a primary purpose of which is to facilitate individual lifestyle choices. In European nations such as the Netherlands and Belgium, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are practiced, and physicians legally practice infanticide when babies are born with serious disabilities or terminal conditions. Others openly prescribe drugs for use in suicide. Today, doctors perform abortions, some through the ninth month. Whereas doctors once considered it their sacred duty to protect and save the lives of their patients, relieve pain, and promote good health practices, today some actively take-or intentionally assist in the taking of-human life. The purposes and practices of medicine have radically changed in the West in recent decades. For doctors who oppose what some call the “new medicine,” the right of conscience both protects patient health and safety and allows physicians to focus on the traditional purposes of medical care. Strong conscience clauses also protect the public by ensuring the survival of healthcare personnel with shared Hippocratic values.īecause we live in such a culturally diverse society, and because some in medical ethics want to require doctors to engage in activities such as abortion or assisted suicide, a movement has begun to legally protect the right of doctors to say no. Characteristics of conscience legislation that protect health-care providers are described. Conscience clauses are a means of defending medical practitioners from these trends. Physicians and other health-care personnel are under institutional and governmental pressure to succumb to anti-Hippocratic ethics.
The consequences of abandoning the Hippocratic tradition are illustrated by the eugenics movement, the Nazi Holocaust, the Tuskegee experiments, and contemporary bioethics theories. The foundational principles of Western medical ethics, as characterized by the Hippocratic Oath, have been weakened or even rejected. These procedures go beyond saving lives, healing disease, and alleviating pain, the traditional purposes of medicine. Health-care providers have been challenged by changes in medical practice to include abortion, euthanasia, and controversial fertility technologies.
0 kommentar(er)
