Those graduating from
medical schools take the Hippocratic
Oath, named after its presumed author and ''father'' of medicine. It is concerned with instilling the
principles of ethical medical practice.
Implicit in the oath are the co-principles of beneficence and avoiding maleficence. Beneficence has to do with working for the betterment of your patience and maleficence is doing harm.
With the above in mind, the implications of doctoring outside of these principles are clear. Patients often place a lot of faith in their caregivers. Although this is changing, we rely on them to do what is good for us. Public health therefore depends on this principle. But it can be looked at in another way. If the principles are not upheld, the public loses faith and the
profession is
brought into disrepute. Sad to say, but it could be argued that much of the loss of prestige of the medical profession over the last few decades, could be attributed to the many dubious
cases that have been brought to the public''s attention.
Another area to consider is that of research. Doctors practice medicine based largely on what other doctors have discovered. Much of this is done in a
clinical setting, which is also under the influence of this oath. For example a doctor who is treating you must fulfill certain criteria if he is also going to include you in a clinical trial. Informed consent must also be sought and given. If he or she is not restrained by these principles the results can be disturbing.
For example consider the Tuskegee Trials between 1932 and 1972. During this period, black men with syphilis were part of an experiment in which they did not receive treatment for their disease and the exact details of the study was kept from them. There was scant regard for their welfare: an obvious breach of the Hippocratic oath. There have been many other frightening cases of abuse, some fatal, which underscores the value of operating within these principles.
More abstracts about the Implications of doctoring without the Hippocratic Oath