Welcome to a forgotten corner of the ancient forest.
The hypocratic oath, in case you are unaware, is taken by doctors when they graduate and sets out moral and ethical obligations of doctors to their patients vis-a-vis the sanctity of human life, relief of suffering etc.
So if you are a US military doctor and you are witness to practices that are in violation of your hypocratic oath, such as the alleged torture of prisoners at, or near, the Iraq airfield, which comes first, your loyalty to your country or your obligations as a doctor.
Jerome A Singh, a senior lecturer in law and bioethics, says it is the latter.
Singh refers to the questionable interrogation techniques reported in a December 2002 Washington Post article, and the deaths of two detainees in Afghanistan in March 2003. While he makes clear that there has been no proof of US military physician complicity in the alleged detainee abuse Singh asserts that "if physicians witness or suspect the abuse of detainees, they should consider it their ethical duty… to document and report such abuse."He warns that "the American government's openly negative views towards terror suspects and the Afghan detainees could influence state physicians to not want to provide reasonable care to, or protect the interests of, such detainees. This mindset could conflict with the physician's ethical duty."
Singh's concern is that doctors, like members of the public, are susceptible to "a loss of moral perspective". He warns against the moral disengagement that can come from the negative labelling or devaluing of a group because of their political culture, and against "victim-blame" where detainees in pain or suffering are considered to be responsible for their own fate.
Doctors in the military face the ultimate ethical dilemma, they particularly, must protect themselves against the scapegoating Phil at Signposts refers to.
There are many jewels hidden amongst the leaves in this forgotten part of the ancient forest. Spend some time browsing and you are sure to find some. Click here or continue your search below
or read the most recent entries here.Regions of this country (USA) have a very dark history in terms of medical ethics. The first doctor in Virginia (who was clearly from Britain) was Dr. John Pott. (he later became governor). When the Powhattans sued for peace in 1623, the governing class there disingenuously agreed to it, the plan being to allow the Powhattans time to grow their corn, which the colonists would then steal, after slaughtering the Powhattans. The colonists arranged for a phoney peace conference in May 1623 on neutral ground. They offered wine as part of a "peace" ceremony to the 200 Powhattan warriors who attended-- wine that had been poisoned by Dr. Pott. The Indians became sick or dropped dead. The colonists (party led by a Capt. William Tucker) shot and killed about 50 more. With such a significant number of warriors gone, the colonists then "ravaged' the remaining civilian population through November, and stole their corn crops.
In Nov. 1623, Dr. Pott ransomed one of the female captives of the 1622 Indian attacks, captives that the colonists had been comletely unconcerned about. A humane act? No. Pott's stance was that she owed a debt of service for his ransome, and for the three years remaining on her husband's contract when he was killed. She described her "service" with Dr. Pott as "differing not from her slavery with the Indians".
The price of this approach to the Indians and to the women and to those of a lower social class was paid by the society: Virginia became a harsh, dictatorial jurisdiction, with hardened social classes, and harsh treatment of those not in the governing class. They lived in fear, not friendliness.
See: http://americanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blmartinshundred.htm
Posted by: moses at October 1, 2003 12:24 AMMost interesting Moses, thank you for your comments.
sadly we have a similar track record in the treatment of Australian Aborigines.
In Tasmania there was not one full blood aborigine left within 50 years of settlement by the English.
Posted by: GreenMan at October 1, 2003 08:05 AMWhat about the doctors who are in violation everyday? The ones that perform abortion!
Posted by: dave van lenten at March 31, 2004 12:00 PMWHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACTS THAT SOME VA DOCTORS ARE USING BEFORE THEY WILL PROVIDE PAIN MEDICATION TO VETERANS. THE ONE IN MIND IS THE USE OF SUCH CONTRACTS FOR TREATMENT USED BY DR. JEROME SAMPSON AT THE VA MEDICAL CENTER IN GAINESVILLE, FL. DR SAMPSON SEEKS THAT THE VETERAN PATIENT WILL RECEIVE NO MEDICATION IF THE VET'S MEDICATION IS STOLEN OR LOST. IN THIS CASE, DR. SAMPSON SEEKS THAT THE VET WILL WAIT AS LONG AS THIRTY DAYS BEFORE HE CAN AGAIN SEEK MEDICATION AND THAT THE VET FACES A SEVERE PENALTY IF THE VET SEEKS TREATMENT AT ANY OTHER FACILITY FOR HIS PAIN OUTSIDE THE VA. THIS CLEARLY VIOLATES HIS HYPOCRATIC OATH TO ALLEVIATE SUFFERING, YET DR. SAMPSON CURRENTLY SEEKS SUCH CONTRACTS. AT THE SAME TIME THE VA PERSISTENTLY IS LATE WITH MONTHLY PRESCRIPTIONS CAUSING PATIENTS TO SUFFER EVEN MORE PAIN AND WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS. THE CONTRACT FOR MEDICATION PLACES ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE VET AS A PATIENT, YET ALLOWS THE VA TO FAIL CONSISTENTLY TO ALLEVIATE THE VET'S SUFFERING. SURELY DR. SAMPSON, UNDER THE CONTRACTS HE SEEKS, IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS HYPOCRATIC OATH. THEY SEE VETS AS MERELY NON PEOPLE BY THIS METHOD. VETS ARE SURELY NOT SECOND CLASS CITIZENS, BUT ACCORDING TO DR. SAMPSON'S CONTRACT FOR TREATMENT THEY ARE. IT IS NOT UNSIMILAR TO THE DOCTOR SEEING ABUSE OF PRISONER'S OF WAR AND NOT REPORTING IT ONLY HERE THE DR. IS SEEING AND SEEKING TO ABUSE AMERICAN VETERANS. THE HYPOCRATIC OATH APPLIES TO ALL PEOPLE THE DR. SEES, OR HAS REASON TO HELP. IT AMAZES ME HOW EASILY SOME DOCTORS MERELY IGNORE THEIR OATH TO SEEK THEIR OWN GOALS.
Posted by: HANK at April 21, 2004 08:54 PMIt is commonly spelled the "Hippocratic" oath.
Posted by: Sam at December 26, 2005 05:00 PMthis is good but i need to know who started it and whats it about
Posted by: matt at March 7, 2006 11:05 PMthis is good but i need to know who started it and whats it about
Posted by: matt at March 7, 2006 11:05 PMthis is good but i need to know who started it and whats it about
Posted by: matt at March 7, 2006 11:05 PMAs a member of the military and having a father who was deployed to Iraq in a medical field, I must assert that there are steps in place to prevent improper acts... It is instead that some people either violate the rules and/or allow others to violate them. In his tour, he treated many detainees and had to completely document any injuries they had daily to check for misconduct. I doubt that much happened beyond that, but the policy is there just as this oath is... its up to the individual to live by their own code.
Posted by: Seth at May 31, 2006 02:40 PM"What about the doctors who are in violation everyday? The ones that perform abortion!
Posted by: dave van lenten at March 31, 2004 12:00 PM"
im sure dave is long gone, but what about it? Abortion is NOT a black/white issue... just as the other questions at hand here. For you to stand up and assert that your opinion of Life is more correct than others makes you in Judgement of others... thus violating countless ideas of how religion should be applied in life by most faiths... So what oath have you taken and broken in your rightous path you are paving with those good intentions?
Posted by: Seth at May 31, 2006 02:44 PMThere is no easy answer for abortion. If a person demands you cut off your hand, do you not have a right to refuse? {in America} Thus if we have a right to self determination, does that not include reproductive rights, including abortion? Perhaps we could spend 1/2 of all the money spent on fighting over this issue and find an alternative or improve education on reproduction, or provide better reproductive services to people.
I have always wondered what happens to those women that are goaded into foregoing an abortion, what about the wellbing of that child after it is born. Many people say they will help you if you don't have the abortion, but will the still be their when you have no food to feed the baby, or need a sitter so you can go to work or help pay for clothes and college? It is always easy to say something is wrong, but it very hard to step up to the plate and be there, after the decision is made and the aftermath comes.
Posted by: Susan at September 18, 2006 07:21 AMthankyou.
so many different issues to consider.does any one know where the hypercratic oath stands in relation to self harm and euthanisia.
caz.
Reproduction is not meant to be a form of recreation. If you are unprepared to have a baby, you should not be doing things that get you pregnant. There are certain situations where it might be acceptable to have an abortion,however, the majority of abortions today are from people who want to have sex, but don't want to take the responsibility of their actions. You say it's our right to have an abortion? No. It is our right to have sex, or to not have sex. When you have an abortion you are taking away another beings rights. They have a right to live as you do. Your rights stop in the bedroom.
Posted by: Brandy at February 15, 2007 06:38 AMI agree with Brandy on most of what she stated. However, she actually contradicts herself at one point when she said abortion may be ok in some cases then later said "When you have an abortion you are taking away another beings rights. They have the right to live as you do." Assuming Brandy is talking about abortion being ok in cases of rape or other illegal situations, the fact still remains you are taking the LIFE of another HUMAN BEING (no matter what stage of LIFE he or she may be at)! Concerning Susans remarks about who is there to help after the baby is born, you should do some investigating because there is lots of help for these moms who need help, they just have to ask. The most unselfish option would be placing your baby for adoption where everyone lives and everyone wins. The baby gets to live with parents who love him/her and the biological mom knows she gave her baby LIFE and doesn't have to live with any regrets. We who are PRO LIFE are not about judging others. We are there to help those moms make the best decisions for her and her child. We are about helping our smallest, most helpless fellow human beings hold on to their greatest right, the right without which no other right even matters - the right to life!
Posted by: fischer at April 2, 2007 03:51 AM
Stumble It!