4 ms·

I understand that, but you see how that "intending to provide relief" is very very different from the original statement of "Neither will I administer a poison

I understand that, but you see how that "intending to provide relief" is very very different from the original statement of "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so", right? Sure, words and context and meaning can change, but this is a very significant change in meaning such that quoting the original statement without clarification is misleading. Plus, how does that answer my other question? You say the Hippocratic oath's true meaning is that a doctor must provide relief, right? What is a greater relief then death? Or less flippantly, who gets to decide what relief is, if not the patient? And if they do, can't they decide death is a relief? I'm just unclear on how your quote from the oath makes it clear that euthanasia violates it.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so" = "neither will I administer a substance I know to be deleterious or harmful to life." The very first definition of "poison" in the OED is: "Material that causes illness or death when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism." Medicine has a therapeutic window that's context-dependent. Part of the doctor's job, which is why they make real money and have relatively high social status, is determining the right course of treatment from that context. To cure -- not to harm, not to kill. If a cure is impossible, to comfort. > What is a greater relief then death? Or less flippantly, who gets to decide what relief is, if not the patient? Patients have every right to refuse treatment. They can also end their own lives; nothing could be simpler. What's perverse is forcing the medical establishment -- in view of its other responsibilities, duties, and oaths -- to act as executioner. It disgraces everybody involved. The doctor ends up dishonored, the state itself is shamed, the human dignity of the patient is, frankly, severely reduced.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so" = "neither will I administer a substance I know to be deleterious or harmful to life." The very first definition of "poison" in the OED is: "Material that causes illness or death when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism." Medicine has a therapeutic window that's context-dependent. Part of the doctor's job, which is why they make real money and have relatively high social status, is determining the right course of treatment from that context. To cure -- not to harm, not to kill. If a cure is impossible, to comfort. > What is a greater relief then death? Or less flippantly, who gets to decide what relief is, if not the patient? Patients have every right to refuse treatment. They can also end their own lives; nothing could be simpler. What's perverse is forcing the medical establishment -- in view of its other responsibilities, duties, and oaths -- to act as executioner. It disgraces everybody involved. The doctor ends up dishonored, the state itself is shamed, the human dignity of the patient is, frankly, severely reduced.