Skip to comments.
Wesley J. Smith: Even Many Doctors Want to Force Colleagues to Violate Hippocratic Oath
Secondhand Smoke ^
| 1/23/09
| Wesley J. Smith
Posted on 01/24/2009 12:01:03 PM PST by wagglebee
An op/ed in today's Baltimore Sun has two doctors insisting that physicians refer patients for abortions if they don't wish to do the deed themselves. (The term used is reproductive health, and so it isn't only abortion to which they refer--but it is part of what is meant by the but euphemism.) In complaining about the Bush conscience regulation, that protects health care workers from being discriminated against if they refuse to participate in health procedures they find morally offensive or that is against their religion, the doctors support the must-refer approach. From the column:
As health care providers, we are, at the very least, obligated to provide all patients with appropriate referrals--even if we do not participate in or agree with the care. Our personal morality does not enter into it. For example, we cannot refuse to treat a drug user for his drug-induced heart attack just because we are morally opposed to drug use. Nor can a doctor deny a blood transfusion to a woman who lost blood in a fight, even though he or she is opposed to violence. How, then, can we allow a receptionist, doctor, nurse or janitor to turn away a women seeking birth control at a clinic that provides such services just because the employee thinks premarital sex is wrong?
I wish these kind of columns had the courage to argue the actual issues primarily involved rather than side matters that are either irrelevant or extremely rare. Be that as it may, forcing a doctor refer a patient to a provider that he or she knows will do the abortion or assist the suicide is to force the referring doctor to be complicit in those acts. Thus, while there certainly should be cooperation in transferring records from the original doctor to a replacement if a patient decides to go that route, no dissenting physicians should not be required ethically to participate directly or indirectly in acts that explicitly violate the Hippocratic Oath.
I don't think the Bush guidelines are the perfect answer, and as I have written,
a lot more thought needs to go into who is covered and under what circumstances by the conscience issue. And as I have also written, I think a distinction needs to be made between elective and non elective procedures, as well as between offending procedures and patients.
But I do believe that if the culture of death prevails legally, we should not permit dissenting health care providers to be driven out of medicine or force facilities such as Catholic hospitals that follow contrary moral teaching to be forced to choose between violating their beliefs and closing their doors.
TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics
KEYWORDS: abortion; hippocraticoath; moralabsolutes; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: wagglebee
21
posted on
01/24/2009 3:04:45 PM PST
by
phatus maximus
( John 6:29. Learn it, love it, live it.)
To: wagglebee
I was under the impression that physicians no longer took the Hippocratic Oath. After all, they would have to swear to not do abortions. I bet they stopped doing it in the 1960s. (Can anyone confirm?)
22
posted on
01/24/2009 7:39:27 PM PST
by
bboop
(obama, little o, not a Real God)
To: bboop; Polybius; hocndoc; HangnJudge
I was under the impression that physicians no longer took the Hippocratic Oath. After all, they would have to swear to not do abortions. I bet they stopped doing it in the 1960s. (Can anyone confirm?) I thought that the Hippocratic Oath was "modernized" in the 1960s to allow physicians to embrace the culture of death. I was under the impression that nearly all physicians still took the oath in some form.
Hopefully some of the others I've pinged can clarify this.
23
posted on
01/25/2009 9:58:11 AM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
I thought that the Hippocratic Oath was "modernized" in the 1960's
Do not know about other schools, and "Modern" times, but
I'm old enough to have actually taken this oath
To: HangnJudge
I know that my father-in-law took the same oath that you did, but that was back in the mid-60s, I thought they had changed the oath since then (I know the original is adamantly anti-abortion and also contains a phrase that could be construed as prohibiting surgery).
25
posted on
01/25/2009 10:09:10 AM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
...and also contains a phrase that could be construed as prohibiting surgery I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
The specialists, in today's vernacular, are called Surgeons
To: HangnJudge
I agree with you; however, I have heard some people incorrectly conclude that this prohibited surgery.
27
posted on
01/25/2009 10:40:14 AM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
That might be what I had heard/ it’s modified. We’ll see if there are any Docs out there.
28
posted on
01/25/2009 11:42:27 AM PST
by
bboop
(obama, little o, not a Real God)
To: bboop
Recent Changes May Render Hippocratic Oath Harmful to Patients, Critic Warns
By Mary Rettig
February 13, 2006
(AgapePress) - Wesley Smith, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, says an oath taken by new doctors for centuries is being watered down to allow for more open interpretation. The Hippocratic Oath has been modernized and modified many times since the original was written centuries before Christ’s birth; however, Smith asserts, recent changes have crossed the line.
According to Smith, some of the mandatory proscriptions in the physician’s oath that require doctors to refrain from doing bad things to patients have been removed. “For example,” he notes, “one of the important protections in the Hippocratic Oath is that doctors are not to have sexual relations with their own patients because, obviously, of the potential for exploitation.”
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/132006d.asp
More at link, including original and new versions.
29
posted on
01/25/2009 12:03:51 PM PST
by
bboop
(obama, little o, not a Real God)
To: wagglebee
30
posted on
01/25/2009 2:19:34 PM PST
by
hocndoc
(http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
To: hocndoc
31
posted on
01/25/2009 2:20:14 PM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson