The New Hippocratic Oath Codifies Harm to Women and the Unborn
Endorsing gender identity a primary consideration; women airbrushed out
Modern medicine has advanced in its techniques since the 1948. But it has also been subtly politicized.
The original Hippocratic Oath contained an important caveat, to first do not harm. In an age when reconstructive surgery often entirely transforms the human body, most notably in transsexual surgeries, the avoidance of harm is no longer a consideration.
It is an inconvenient caveat.
And although the maintenance of ‘health’ and ‘well-being’ are in the oath, they are not defined.
One might say that such matters are self-evident. But modern medical textbooks no longer contain a definition of human health, and the killing of the unborn in the act of abortion is regularly disguised under the circumlocution ‘women’s health’.
Health and well-being are no longer defined in part because there is no longer an objective sense of what constitutes human nature.
In the absence of such definitions, the human person is simply a thing that can be experimented upon by the professionals. The patient is left with the hope that his or her physician might observe traditional standards of ethics, but there is no longer any certitude there.
It is interesting to compare the 2017 version of the Hippocratic Oath with the 1948 version. In many respects they are strikingly different.
But it needs to be pointed out that on top of the addition of the usual politically correct terminology like ‘gender’ and ‘sexual orientation’, the word ‘sex’ is left out from grounds on which the doctor will not discriminate.
Does the medical profession no longer acknowledge biological sex as an essential attribute of human nature? Does it think that women around the world suffer exploitation? Is biological sex no longer a grounds on which discrimination might happen?
The word ‘gender’ refers to the social constructs related to sex, including the perceptions of the individual concerned. But that is most certainly not the same thing as ‘sex’.
This is highly disturbing.
Here are some of the others, which BioEdge observes:
1948: I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception
2017: I will maintain the utmost respect for human life.
1948: even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity
2017: I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat.
1948: I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers
2017: I will foster the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession
But most striking of all is the reference to “the autonomy and dignity of my patient”. I suspect that sudden reference to autonomy is coded language for pushing gender identity (self-identification) upon the medical profession.
This latest ‘improvement’ on the Hippocratic Oath has regressed not progressed in its humanity. The original Hippocratic Oath, among other things, swore:
‘I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.’ In other words, it forbade doctor-assisted suicide and abortion.
The medical profession needs to examine itself.
You may be interested
How the Queen – the ‘last Christian monarch’ – has made the Christian faith her messageadmin - Dec 24, 2017
"For the past 17 years, (the Queen's) messages have taken on a different tone, with the Queen explaining her own…
Stephen LeDrew fired for inadvertently exposing Canada’s freeze on free speechadmin - Dec 16, 2017
I reported that Canadian CP 24 Host Stephen LeDrew was suspended for appearing on 'Tucker Carlson' a few weeks ago.…