4 ms·

> So does abortion and euthanasia, and probably plenty of other practices as well. A less controversial example would be something like chemotherapy. In fact,

> So does abortion and euthanasia, and probably plenty of other practices as well. A less controversial example would be something like chemotherapy. In fact, a lot of treatments for terminal and chronic ailments are pretty harmful.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
All 3 of those examples are actually covered by the “original” Hippocratic Oath (which probably wasn’t written by Hippocrates, incidentally). > Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. Chemo is obviously a bit different though, because the potential harm caused by denying abortion or euthanasia is (generally speaking) the potential to deny somebody the right to exercise a form of personal agency over their body/life. The controversy isn’t really a medical one. The Oath also doesn’t really address treatments that have potentially harmful side effects, and it’s debated whether the oath allows doctors to perform surgery. It’s basically not fit for purpose in 2020. If you wanted to suggest that software engineers adopt a code of ethics similar to that of doctors, what you’d be really suggesting is something like “We need a AMA Code of Medical Ethics for software engineers”. Which obviously doesn’t have the same broad appeal and simplicity of an oath.
- frobozz 6y ago
  That was essentially my point. With euthanasia and abortion you will find plenty of people who would call them unambiguously harmful and think they should be banned outright, regardless of context. You'd be hard pressed to find people who want to abolish the entire field of oncology on the grounds that the treatments are horrible. It's absurd to take the above-stated "requirement to abstain from causing harm" as a hard restriction out of context without taking into account the main point of the profession which is to help the sick. The logical conclusion of considering "do no harm" as inviolable above all else is that doctors would have to restrict their treatments to homeopathy and compassionate smiles.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

All 3 of those examples are actually covered by the “original” Hippocratic Oath (which probably wasn’t written by Hippocrates, incidentally). > Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. Chemo is obviously a bit different though, because the potential harm caused by denying abortion or euthanasia is (generally speaking) the potential to deny somebody the right to exercise a form of personal agency over their body/life. The controversy isn’t really a medical one. The Oath also doesn’t really address treatments that have potentially harmful side effects, and it’s debated whether the oath allows doctors to perform surgery. It’s basically not fit for purpose in 2020. If you wanted to suggest that software engineers adopt a code of ethics similar to that of doctors, what you’d be really suggesting is something like “We need a AMA Code of Medical Ethics for software engineers”. Which obviously doesn’t have the same broad appeal and simplicity of an oath.

frobozz 6y ago
That was essentially my point. With euthanasia and abortion you will find plenty of people who would call them unambiguously harmful and think they should be banned outright, regardless of context. You'd be hard pressed to find people who want to abolish the entire field of oncology on the grounds that the treatments are horrible. It's absurd to take the above-stated "requirement to abstain from causing harm" as a hard restriction out of context without taking into account the main point of the profession which is to help the sick. The logical conclusion of considering "do no harm" as inviolable above all else is that doctors would have to restrict their treatments to homeopathy and compassionate smiles.