Other than the white coat ceremony, the Hippocratic Oath is the closest thing medicine has to a rite of passage. The original oath was believed to be created by Hippocrates, a philosopher and physician considered by many to be the father of Western medicine. The oath was meant to be a standard by which all doctors hold themselves to on a societal level, as it listed a series of absolutes that doctors pledged to uphold.
The Hippocratic Oath listed a series of absolutes that doctors pledged to uphold.
Image Source: mikroman6
As time progressed, however, these absolutes started to become irrelevant, as some of them forbade doctors from performing abortions or even operating in surgery (“I will get no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child… I will not cut for the stone”). As these tasks evolved from social taboos to job requirements, the oath fell out of touch with modern medicine and became more of a historical document that touched on medicine’s past. Because of this, a revised version was created in 1968 by Louis Lasagna, which offered a contemporary perspective on the nature of being a physician.
So, what is the issue? For some, the oath is just a formality, a symbol of the past to be upheld as tradition. Others argue that the guidelines outlined in the oath (mostly those outlined in the modern version) serve as a reminder to keep things in perspective. One doctor responded to a PBS article on the Hippocratic Oath in 2001 with, “I do not see it as a legally binding oath, but as a sign of personal importance, commitment, and solemnity, just as when we mark the birth of our young, choose life’s partners, and bury our dead. The exact wording we use to mark these events changes through time and through cultures, but the basic human emotions that these words wish to convey are universal: celebration, commitment, and mourning.”
Speaking candidly, the oath, from my point of view, is not just a couple of paragraphs of recitation, nor is it a doctrine meant to be stored in the back of the mind, shadowing a doctor’s everyday decisions. My approach to the idea of the oath is finding the balance between application of knowledge and understanding the philosophy behind the knowledge. The oath, in itself, stands as a credence of solidarity; after the oath, physicians find themselves unified under one mantra, swearing to share their knowledge with others whenever possible and putting their best foot forward to heal and give care. The oath links the medically inclined together as one, who strive to provide healthcare for those in need, regardless of their age, race, or gender.
Regarding the undertaking of the oath, the semantics of ethics versus the reality of practicing medicine mean nothing. The oath’s true nature was never about spelling out what doctors can or cannot do, as there are no repercussions for “violating the oath.” The nature of the oath is to communicate to all who swear to abide by it that they are not and never will be alone in the path that they have chosen. And with this knowledge, they can find the courage to press on, even when practicing seems feeble. So, no, the oath has not lost its relevancy. In a time where the quality of healthcare is continuously being questioned, the oath’s message has never been as important.
You can find an older, albeit interesting look at the Hippocratic Oath from PBS Nova here.
Feature Image Source: DarkoStojanovic
