I discovered recently that doctors in NZ no longer take the ancient Hippocratic Oath, in which the primary part is primum non nocere (‘first do no harm’).
The Hippocratic Oath also contains several quite concrete obligations.
Among them are:
- commitments to prescribe treatment for the benefit of the sick according to the physician’s ability and judgement;
- to refrain from causing injury or injustice;
- to keep confidential what the physician learns in the course of treatment.
Obviously, in New Zealand the ancient Hippocratic Oath is seen as “old hat” and “out-of-date” (along with moral principles and along with that, the Human Rights Act, 1993), as it has has, it seems, been replaced in New Zealand, by a medical Oath taken at graduation that draws on international precedents including the Declaration of Geneva that was drawn up in 1948 to avoid the violations of medical ethics under the Nazis.
The modern Declaration of Geneva expresses its obligations differently from the Hippocratic Oath. It emphasises the patient’s health and wellbeing, autonomy, dignity, confidentiality and human rights.
It never, to my knowledge ever replaced the Hippocratic Oath
The Otago Oath, however, did.
It took away the Oath to do no harm and replaced it with different wording that placed in first place, the “doctors’ responsibility for their own health and wellbeing”.
https://www.drblayney.com/Declaration.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Essentially what this does is replace a solemn oath of a doctor’s responsibility towards the patient – essentially a matter of morality and ethics – with a legal statement that puts in central place the medical industry’s commitment to itself while watering down the oath of doctors’ responsibility towards their patients to a general intent to “promote the welfare and maintain the reputation of the medical profession“
That is a long, long way from the patient-centred Hippocratic oath.
It begs the question, What happens when a doctor’s duty to the patient comes into conflict with the doctor’s duty to the institution in which the doctor works?
A solemn moral commitment asks a person to take responsibility for what they do. A compliance-based system can encourage them to believe that responsibility lies elsewhere — with the law, the guidelines, the employer or the professional consensus.
Essentially, it takes the personal responsibility out of the equation and it becomes a question of compliance to a system.
It explains how a patient (in this case, myself) can make a formal complaint about malpractice and abuse of a patient and uphold the interests of the institution.
It can, and does, in practise replace considerations such as
“we believe our actions were appropriate, but we will examine the evidence and correct any inaccuracies we find”
with
“Our actions were appropriate because our procedures were followed, and the patient’s account does not alter our position”
In essence, it provides a legal justification for the situation described by Holocaust survivor, Vera Sharav – the slippery moral slope we have seen since covid where doctors can find legal justification for abandoning their oath towards their patients by not causing harm such as the “covid” false vacuum.
See my recent article:
A society that lives by lies is EVIL
·
7 Oct
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. God will not hold us unaccountable.”
In this framework doctors can find personal justification for colluding with a crime that is the equal of anything carried out by doctors and nurses in the Third Reich.
In a recent letter to my medical centre (to which I have received no reply) I laid out my own position:
During my training as an acupuncturist it was drummed into us that as practitioners we hold a lot of power and the patients are in a vulnerable situation. Although I never took the Hippocratic Oath I always took this advice seriously and it would never have occurred to me, no matter how inconvenient the patient, to invert the relationship and accuse them of “abuse” for complaining.
Talking about my very good young doctor, I suspect he is, sooner or later, going to be faced by a moral choice – a fork in the road.
Is he going to stand for his obvious moral standards (which would take him out of the profession at an early age), OR is he going to decide to comply and compromise himself?
***
Finishing on a more personal note, I had a consultation with my doctor. While waiting, Pam caught the man we contemptuously call “the Dairy Farmer” who when he saw her gave her an ugly glare.
Pam felt she was looking at the face of Darkness.
Meanwhile, I was seated opposite the receptionists and as I looked at them the words “non-playing characters (NPCS’s) came to mind,
This was brilliantly captured by Jean Nolan yesterday.
In this context, how frequent is the following? – even if not in such a formal context.
How many amongst us owe their allegiance to Satan?
How many are doctors, sworn to protect the interests of their patients?
How many amongst us are simply NPC’s and have been perceptually – manipulated into avoiding personal responsibility and tolerating evil?
Observe the people of authority around you and let me know.
EWNZ Note: look what they are doing to Dr Sam Bailey, one of those who saw through the ‘safe & effective’ … they are going after her. She is appealing for financial help as this is the way they destroy people. Long drawn out charges and fines that eventually cripple their victims. Ask yourself, are they really about health?
Support Dr Sam’s fundraiser here 👉 https://www.givesendgo.com/can-you-he… In 2020, I chose to speak out about my concerns over the COVID-19 narrative, leaving behind my career as a doctor and television presenter to share my research independently. Since then, I have faced six years of legal battles with the Medical Council of New Zealand, resulting in substantial financial penalties and mounting legal costs that are an enormous burden to face alone. Despite these challenges, I refuse to be silenced. Your donation through my GiveSendGo campaign will help ease this burden and allow me to continue my work. Thank you for standing with me.
Discover more from Environmental Health Watch NZ
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To my knowledge, the original Hippocratic oath was simply, “Do no harm, don’t help a patient suicide, don’t have sex with a patient”. This was from a time when there were no hospitals; it was all home visits. I like the bit in the one quoted here, where they have to train their successors for free.
There have been numerous revisions and updated versions. This New Zealand version from Auckland certainly is the first one I’ve seen that lays stress on the reputation of the profession.
One thing that has crept in, in my (long) lifetime, is the willingness of some doctors, probably a small minority, but I’ve struck a couple, who take on the great responsibility of deciding who is worthy of having public funds spent on their healthcare, and who is not. That is verging on “playing God”. One of the versions of the Hippocratic Oath which I’ve seen, actually says, “Don’t play God”.
Since 2021, I managed to avoid seeing a doctor until a couple of months ago. Lately, I have had good reason to be very thankful for the help of our doctors and nurses. Just saying.
LikeLike