This is revisionism on steroids. The Hippocratic Oath is no longer taken by most doctors because it has some politically incorrect clauses, such as barring physicians from mercy killing patients, abortion, and sex with patients. I have written about those matters here at SHS before. But now an ethicist writing for the BBC tries to tell us that the Oath really didn’t ban assisted suicide or abortion. From the article:
The next part seemingly concerns euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, saying: “And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel.”
Two leading scholars of the Oath, Littre and Miles, have however suggested that this passage alludes to the then common practice of using doctors as skilled political assassins. Steven Miles notes: “Fear of the physician-poisoner may be traced very close to the time of the Oath.” The word “euthanasia” (meaning “easeful death”) was only coined a century after the writing of the Oath.
The text continues: “And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary.” This passage is often interpreted as a rejection of abortion.
However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece. As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself.
Oh, please. First, note that when the Oath switches topics from mercy killing to abortion, the use of the segue word, “likewise.” How can the anti mercy killing issue refer to assassination when, by using the word likewise, the author is clearly saying “in the same manner, I will not use a pessary to cause abortion.” He wouldn’t be assassinating the woman!
Moreover, euthanasia means “good death,” not “eased death,” and up until the late 19th Century it meant dying at home, pain free, in a state of grace, surrounded by family. It was one of the first words co-opted by the then nascent mercy killing movement to change the language to make killing easier to accept. (See Ian Dowbiggin’s A Concise History of Euthanasia.)
Trying to pretend that today’s medical ethical milieu is still “Hippocratic” is nonsense—particularly when there is a movement afoot to force doctors to perform or be complicit in abortions and assisted suicides—and when physicians are no longer scorned for affairs with their patients.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
