The Hippocratic oath is such an enduring icon of medical morality that physicians in Nazi Germany invoked it to protest Euthanasie, the systematized killing of weak or sick children, people with incurable diseases, hospitalized criminals (a category applicable to gays), geriatric patients, long-term patients, patients not of German blood (Jews and Romani), and people with disabilities. Several expert witnesses at the 1945 Nuremberg Medical Trial also cited the oath to condemn Nazi physicians\' abuse of human research subjects. Noting these invocations, in 1947 the physicians who founded the World Medical Association modernized the Hippocratic oath to convey to future medical students its foundational precepts: benefitting the sick, not harming them, not breaching confidentiality, and not treating patients unjustly, irrespective of their gender or social status. This article presents a historically accurate reading of the oath\'s strange-seeming passages to show that it does not prohibit abortion, euthanasia (medical aid in dying), or surgery. The article also contends that oath-swearing remains an important asset in teaching clinicians their role responsibilities, and that its ethics supports women\'s rights to reproductive health care and can valorize challenges to venture-capitalist and for-profit managements that prioritize profitability over providing quality health care for patients.

暂无摘要。

Hippocrates\' teaching on the ethical and moral values of medicine have captivated physicians, scholars, and historians for over twenty-five centuries, enduring despite the challenges of applying moral guidance across diverse cultures. At the core of Hippocratic ethics is the human relationship between the physician and the patient, with an emphasis on the physician\'s responsibility to assess potential harm involved in any attempt to heal. The Hippocratic principle \"to help, or at least to do no harm\" remains as relevant today as it was 2,500 years ago. In the modern context, it serves as a deontological imperative, reminding physicians to evaluate the risks of harm associated with any healing attempt. This concept aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, which are at the heart of Hippocratic medical ethics with timeless significance.

Pediatric surgeons need to learn to give as much importance to the ethical approach as they have been giving to the systemic methodology in their clinical approach all along. The law of the land and the governmental rules also need to be kept in mind before deciding the final solution. They need to always put medical problems in the background of ethical context, reach a few solutions keeping in mind the available resources, and apply the best solution in the interest of their pediatric patients.

Hippocrates, an influential figure in ancient Greek medicine, is best known for his lasting contribution, the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a significant message about obstetrics and gynecology. Given the Oath\'s status as a widely regarded ethical code for medical practice, it requires critical evaluation. The message of the Oath, as it related to obstetrics and gynecology, is expressed in ancient Greek by the phrase \"οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω\" which translates directly to \"I will not give to any woman a harming pessary.\" The words fetus and abortion were not present in the original Greek text of the Oath. Yet, this message of the Hippocratic Oath has been interpreted often as a prohibition against abortion. In this article, we present a critical linguistic and historical analysis and argue against the notion that the Hippocratic Oath was prohibiting abortion. We provide evidence that the words \"foetum\" (fetus) and \"abortu\" (abortion) were inserted in the Latin translations of the Oath, which then carried on in subsequent English versions. The addition of the words \"fetus\" and \"abortion\" in the Latin translations significantly altered the Oath\'s original meaning. Unfortunately, these alterations in the translation of the Hippocratic Oath have been accepted over the years because of cultural, religious, and social reasons. We assert that because the original Hippocratic Oath did not contain language related to abortion, it should not be construed as prohibiting it. The interpretation of the Oath should be based on precise and rigorous translation and speculative interpretations should be avoided.

A quasi-scientific interest in hair loss and hair care originated in a London barbershop, and became known as trichology, with the Institute of Trichologists being founded. Other corporations successively followed, offering paid courses by home-study for training of initiates who desire more knowledge about hair. Trichologists are not medically qualified but are taught the practice of care and treatment of the hair and scalp in health and disease within their restricted but specialized role. With the advent of opportunities in the social media, and of epiluminiscence microscopy, a procedure practiced by the guild of trichologists long before its nominal introduction as trichoscopy into dermatologic practice, representatives of the medical profession are following the example of the trichologists in offering online courses, though with a better understanding of clinical-pathological correlations based on their academic learning. Despite the enthusiasm emerging with its establishment as a dermatologic tool in the diagnosis of hair and scalp disorders, caution is warranted not to elevate trichoscopy to something like a fetish status. As a diagnostic procedure, trichoscopy is to be understood as representing an integral part of a comprehensive dermatological examination. The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history, allegedly still held sacred by physicians: to treat the ill to the best of one\'s ability, to preserve a patient\'s privacy, and to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation without fee. And yet, as in no other field of medicine, paid online courses on trichoscopy are flourishing and with a primary commercial aim. However, dermato-trichology, or trichiatry require the same due diligence as any other medical discipline, with respect to its practice and its ethics. Medical artistry is neither reducible to a single hand-held diagnostic technique nor is it negotiable.

There is a pressing debate in the United States concerning the implied physicians\' obligation to do no harm and the status of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Key issues that underpin the debate are important to consider. These include: (1) foundational medical beginnings; (2) euthanasia\'s historical and legal background context; and (3) the key arguments held by those for and against legalization of PAS. This paper reviews the major claims made by proponents for the legalization of PAS and the associated complexities and concerns that help underscore the importance of conscience freedoms. Relief of suffering, respect for patient autonomy, and public policy arguments are discussed in these contexts. We argue here that the emphasis by healthcare providers should be on high quality and compassionate care for those at the end of life\'s journey who are questioning whether to prematurely end their lives. If medicine loses its chief focus on the quality of caring-even when a cure is not possible-it betrays its objective and purpose. In this backdrop, legalization of PAS harms not only healthcare professionals, but also the medical profession\'s mission itself. Medicine\'s foundation is grounded in the concept of never intentionally to inflict harm. Inflicting death by any means is not professional or proper, and is not trustworthy medicine.

Social media is increasingly a part of our personal and professional life and is here to stay. Here, I reflect on issues surrounding the use of social media (SMU) in the digital health context by clinicians in Australian paediatric health care. I aim to briefly highlight some inherent multifactorial and contextual ethical considerations which mainly relate to professionalism; including boundaries, obligations to patients and families within the therapeutic alliance, and balancing the help, hype and harm of SMU in clinical practice. I conclude that digital health and SMU are ubiquitous, and can be beneficial if used circumspectly with Hippocratic principles that have been updated for the modern era and are grounded in ancient moral codes. Unfettered SMU however, without adherence to ethical and legal guidelines is problematic, and may expose patients, families and clinicians to significant risk of harm and moral vulnerability. Justifiable, explicit, consistent and regularly reviewed boundaries, both professional and personal, are ethically advisable. These should reflect, and adapt to, the rapidly evolving nature of social media as imprudent digital health and SMU without proportionate limits, may undermine still relevant Hippocratic tenets, and the primacy of doing no harm.

暂无摘要。

Background Medical ethics is defined as the ethical obligations of medical professionals towards their patients, colleagues, and society. The inadequacy and non-uniformity of this topic has been associated with rising cases of professional misconduct and medical negligence all over the world. Objective To assess and compare the status of knowledge, attitude and practice of medical ethics among medical doctors and nurses in three major hospitals of Pokhara valley. Method This was a cross-sectional study conducted from 15th Mar 2018 to 13th Apr 2018; in which 124 doctors and 103 nurses were asked to fill up medical ethics related questionnaire. The data was entered in SPSS file and the association of variables was determined by Chi-square and statistical significance was considered if the p-value < 0.05. Result The study showed that 56.5%, 8.1%, and 13.7% of doctors were aware of the Hippocratic oath, Nuremberg Code, and Helsinki declaration respectively compared to only 1% of nurses. There was a significant difference in opinions on various questions related to medical ethics with p-value < 0.05 in 12 out of 22 questions. Only a few (12.1% doctors vs. 25.2% nurses) stood in support of the physicianassisted dying. Conclusion The study showed that there was inadequate as well as a non-uniform level of knowledge of three major codes of medical ethics and principles related to it which resulted in significant disparity in the attitude and practice of medical ethics among doctors and nurses in Pokhara valley.