The irrelevance of the Hippocratic Oath

In my opinion, the Hippocrates oath is not an absolute necessity, and due to the secularism of modern times, its importance has been grossly overstated.  This is because the modern adaptation is almost unrecognisable from the original version, written between the Third and Fifth centuries BC.  In its initial form, the Hippocratic Oath forbade the use of a knife, undoubtedly the cornerstone of modern surgical techniques.  It's revered status was derived from being sworn to Pagan Gods of healing, an aspect which was abandoned in the 1964 revision.


It is therefore a fluid document that adheres to medical advancements, and their subsequent ethical issues.  This shifting dynamic persisted until 1964, when it was rewritten by Louis Lasanga.  Since then, the Oath has remained the same, and appears to have recouped its original divinity, as it is often regarded by medical institutions in the same manner as Scripture.  Many problems arise from the divination of the 1964 version, it's teachings on euthanasia and abortion are two of the most prominent.  These should conform to populist support for these procedures, in the same way as popular opinion would condone surgeons using a knife!  

Comments

Popular Posts