"First, do no harm." It doesn't say "a little harm didn't hurt anybody." (I believe that the Marquis de Sade said that -- oh no, wait, he said "to thine own self be true", meaning that it is OK to give in to your inner animal regardless of consequences to yourself and others.)
There is no choice in that oath. There are no weasel words, no escape clause. That's why the position as doctor is respected, and of a higher level than, say a technician's or dba's.
If a doctor knowingly kills half their patients when there's any kind of alternative, (what many are advocating here), is that doing no harm? If it is doing "no harm", at what point in reductio ad absurdum will your view change, and you will decide that this is wrong? When the doctor knowingly kills 51% of their patients? Again, the oath is absolute. Killing half your patients to determine which vaccine works crosses a clearly defined ethical line in medical experimentation -- while leaving it entirely to chance leaves the medical professional with the only option that doesn't automatically violate that oath.
You want to project a 21st century makes-good-TV ethos on an oath that goes back some 2500 years, go ahead, but then it won't be the Hippocratic oath anymore, but will instead be something else. Good TV drama, maybe, but still appalling. |
