Do Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Violate the Hippocratic Oath?

  • Euthanasia Does Harm

    The Hippocratic oath dictates that physicians should not deliberately do harm to their patients. This means that they should not intentionally worsen the case of a patient who is ill. This worsening of the case would potentially bring upon death quicker than it otherwise would. Therefore, Euthanasia is against the Hippocratic Oath's spirit and word.

  • Yes they do.

    Assisting suicide even by physician is not an okay thing to do and it does violate the oath. I think that a physician needs to do their best to save a person, no matter how bad that condition is. Even in the next year new and improved medicine could come out that saves the person.

  • It Does Violate The Oath

    I believe that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide do violate the Hippocratic Oath because it states, "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." Clearly this goes against the ideals presented in the Hippocratic Oath. However, many physicians don't live up to the standard of the Hippocratic Oath. Secondly, the oath was written around the fifth century BC, meaning that it couldn't have seen what the medical field would turn into in the present, or predict that humans would generally live much longer lives in the present. Needless to say, if a common document were produced today, I'm sure it would be much different, and far longer.

  • Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Does Violate the Hippocratic Oath.

    Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Does Violate the Hippocratic Oath. In the Hippocratic Oath, it clearly states and prohibits the killing of a human being, just as it forbids any aid in suicide. So is euthanasia as the killing of a patient by the physician is not in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath.

  • Its just wrong

    Yes, its true what the no side is arguing, but its not a doctors place to help harm a patient or any person. The Hippocratic oath says you will do no harm. I am a high schooler doing a debate project on assisted suicide and i have found many reasons against it; one is it is actually against the oath. Also, as a doctor, why would you want someone to die? Dont help another person die before their time.

  • Does harm.The end.

    It does harm. Death shouldn't"t be legal. Let alone assisted suicide? No thats morally wrong and asking a doctor. Someone who is supposed to be saving life..To kill. Get people help or some counselling no one should have the right to determine the end of their life. Life should be fought for not given up on

  • Do No Harm.

    The line Do No Harm is violated. By dealing the drug to the patient fully aware that the patient intends to commit suicide is harming the patient, even if the patient administers it to them selves the physician is at fault by intent to aid in a suicide. Do No Harm!!!

  • Hippocratic Oath is Most Definitely Violated

    Assisted suicide and euthanasia violate a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath in multiple ways. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath stating the obligations of doctors in the medical field. Some values state that you should never worsen the case of a patient who is ill. By helping a client end their life, they are going against the oath.

  • "Do No Harm"

    It says not to do any harm, you are KILLING a patient by euthanizing them! I really should not be talknig tho so bye I should just shut the f up. Hahahaha jkjkjk lol
    wha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha <3 Bye Biatch

  • Euthanasia violates the Hippocratic oath of doctors.

    Euthanasia is really doctor assisted suicide but called something else. Euthanasia is "The act of relieving pain and suffering". Any doctor can go into a patients room without consent and give them a lethal injection , killing the patient and say "It was consented Euthanasia" without the knowledge of the family and not get put in jail for it.

  • To do no harm

    The Hippocratic oath states that a doctor should do no harm - by say not bringing a painless end to their life the patient lives and suffers and faces harm and it is the doctor's decision not to give them that way out which causes them to feel this harm. Euthanizing them admittedly kills the body but it takes away the suffering - also if we do this to animals - we 'put down' dogs and so on - why cant the same be applied to humans?

  • Do no harm

    I am not a doctor myself, but in my opinion, Euthanasia doesn't violate the oath. "Do not harm", what does harm mean for you anyway? If that patient thinks that ending his life is less harmful then don't you want to respect their opinions? They have the right to autonomy, let their death be the last dignified decision they'll have. Who are we to prevent that?

  • Euthanasia Ends Pain

    Patients that are suffering so severely are in more pain than they would be in death. Death can relieve them of their pain. The Hippocratic Oath states that they should "do no harm" but is keeping them alive to suffer doing them more harm than performing a ultimately painless procedure?

  • “do no harm”

    A popular quote being “do no harm” may need some clarification, does doing no harm mean one should extend a life that the terminally ill patient sees as misery? Where does one draw the line? The Hippocratic Oath has been altered many times throughout centuries and will continue to be changed.

  • Seems like a double negative

    If a doctor has a patient who is diagnosed with a terminal sickness and has tried all the practically available treatments(practically as in financially able by the family or insurance and drugs available to battle illness) with no success but the patient will live for a short time as the body deteriorates and they choose peaceful euthanasia or assisted death(as in prescribing lethal dose of medications to let patient choose when), is it harming the patient by not helping relieve that pain and suffering or is the Oath still against harming the patient by inducing unconscious death. They don't just give them potassium chloride and they die, the patients are given Benzo's and pain killers to calm them, sometimes very powerful drugs or anesthesia to induce unconsciousness and then the lethal drug is injected, so its more a slipping away calmly process. Is it harming by not helping eliminate the indefinite pain or harming by relieving it when death is absolute?

  • I don't believe it does.

    The Hippocratic Oath talks about do no harm. If we allow our patients that are terminally ill to suffer unnecessarily, then we are doing them harm. If we are drawing out medical treatment and placing a higher financial burden on their family when the result is they're going to lose their loved one either way, then we're hurting their family. Yes, there are medications to relieve pain, but many times those medications, for some reason or another, don't take away all of the pain. Not to mention, all of the horrible things they have to go through in treatment can strip a person of their dignity. Palliative care should be the first option, and when all of those options run out, a patient should be able to choose whether or not they want to remain in the state they're in, or die. Losing someone is a very painful thing, and it's going to hurt no matter what the timing is, whether sooner or later. In my opinion, I wouldn't want to watch any loved one of mine suffer in agony and shame.

  • To Do No Harm

    Even the law has a hard time defining what harm is so in the case of euthanasia there should be a set standard for what is harm. Would it be considered harm if a patient does not want to go through the mental trauma of knowing that they have 2 months to live and would prefer to die?

  • Do No Harm

    Some people side against euthanasia because the Hippocratic oath, the oath that new physicians swear to, says to do no harm. In most cases, people look at the Hippocratic Oath’s vow to do no harm too literally. When you look at the Hippocratic Oath between the lines, do no harm doesn’t always have to mean the patient's life, and can also refer to the overall well-being of a patient. The real question is what does more harm, keeping a suffering patient alive for a short while longer, or ending their suffering in a quick painless way?

  • Hffyyukuflkufcfty hhhh hhhh

    H h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h j j j j j j jj j j j j j k k k k kk k k k kl l l l l l l l l l l v v v

  • Benefit of the patients

    The oath states that "I consider for the benefit of the patients". By this, it is saying that whatever could be done to help the patients and prevent them from their pain. This, if the severity of the pain was high enough, should allow the doctor to administrate euthanasia. For some people, the only option left is death, and to leave them in horrific pain for sometimes years or even decades is simply barbaric.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.