Amazon.com Widgets

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.

  • Wrong, bad bad

    Even though euthanasia is a way to relieve extreme pain and may have a few financial advantages, it is still the death of a human. Nearly 4.6% of all deaths worldwide are due to physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia goes against the hippocratic oath and it is sometimes hard to determine the patients mental capability to decide such a big decision. Sometimes euthanasia is even done without the patient's consent. Euthanasia should be illegal.
    The Hippocratic oath is an oath stating the obligations and proper conduct of doctors. THe oath states that “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan”. Euthanasia is the killing of a patient which clearly goes against the Hippocratic oath.

  • NO Harm Done! Dr's Order Number One

    Mercy killings violates the Value of Life Principle by taking innocent lives v. Killing to protect innocents. This applies most where victims can't give consent for their own demise.

    Despite motivation, deliberately killing another person is outright murder with premeditation. Period. Case rested and closed airtight forever. EOD (end of debate).

    By very nature of their job position, any physician has an incumbent obligation to sustain life. So, they must not be allowed to take life. Despite how bleak a patient's future prognosis might look at any given moment. Circumstances can change in an instant to bring a drastic difference from one split second ago. Desperately ill people have made last-minute recoveries and gone on to live long lives in good health thereafter. In addition, a physician may fail to make the correct diagnosis or misjudge severity of a patient's true condition.

    Not to mention that 'MD' does not exempt one from the same biases and prejudices all mortals share from cradle to grave. So, it's always best to err on the side of caution by not assisting suicide or allowing legalized murder.

    Whatever exact lexis phraseology stated in the Hippocratic Oath, it's violated by physician-induced death or other euphemism we apply.

  • NO Harm Done! Dr's Order Number One

    Mercy killings violates the Value of Life Principle by taking innocent lives v. Killing to protect innocents. This applies most where victims can't give consent for their own demise.

    Despite motivation, deliberately killing another person is outright murder with premeditation. Period. Case rested and closed airtight forever. EOD (end of debate).

    By very nature of their job position, any physician has an incumbent obligation to sustain life. So, they must not be allowed to take life. Despite how bleak a patient's future prognosis might look at any given moment. Circumstances can change in an instant to bring a drastic difference from one split second ago. Desperately ill people have made last-minute recoveries and gone on to live long lives in good health thereafter. In addition, a physician may fail to make the correct diagnosis or misjudge severity of a patient's true condition. Not to mention that 'MD' does not exempt one from the same biases and prejudices all mortals share from cradle to grave. So, it's always best to err on the side of caution by not assisting suicide or allowing legalized murder.

    Whatever exact lexis phraseology stated in the Hippocratic Oath, it's violated by physician-induced death or other euphemism we apply.

  • 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!!!

  • Does no harm

    "Primum non nocere. " First do no HARM. The physician is not doing harm. They are simply aiding to end the pain and suffering that the patient is enduring. The only way a doctor can aid is if there is no chance the patient can get better and if the patient already has a permit death date. The patient has to go through psychological screenings to ensure they are of right mind. Most are ok with the death sentence, Abortion and the right to end our pets lives. But its not ok to end our own pain and suffering? With PAS you go peacefully. Were as if we don't have a physician with us to prescribe the drugs needed it becomes just suicide and we don't know if the patient suffered when ending their life.

  • Does Not Harm

    Its the doctors objective to help a patient and if that patient has determined there is no longer a way for them to live and they have gone through counseling and other means but they have been through too much with their terminal illness and if their doctor has concluded their are in their right mind to choose to end their life on their own terms.

  • 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?


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