The Hippocratic Oath, usually summarized by the Latin phrase “primum non nocere” (“first do no harm”), has been a millennia old concept that a physician should be a healer and not an inflictor of pain and/or death… more or less in modern times, especially with the spread and acceptance of abortion and euthanasia whereby more and more medical schools have been relaxing if not outright abandoning the Hippocratic Oath.
Now, however, there is a move to not just abolish the essence of the Hippocratic Oath, but to instill a mirror-universe version whereby all doctors are to be required to kill via abortion or euthanasia or be banned as doctors. Thus, no practicing doctor could be trusted to uphold any semblance of the Hippocratic Oath, as any who would would be barred from medical practice.
“A bioethicist is calling for medical schools to eliminate applicants who would oppose providing medical services over objections to them based on their personal beliefs.
“For Schuklenk [, a Queen’s University professor and the Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics], a possible solution to prevent such debates from cropping up at all would be to screen out would-be doctors who say they would object to providing health care on conscience grounds before they even get to medical school.
“This could be done through a survey or asking medical school applicants outright if they foresee themselves objecting to providing certain types of health care.
“’The problems that we are having now that lead to the kinds of legislation they are considering now in Alberta is caused by these sorts of doctors who prioritize their private beliefs, ultimately, over patient well-being,’ Schuklenk told Global News.
“’Medical schools, pharmacy schools should go out of their way to basically eliminate applicants who they know already will not provide these services.’”
The entire point of the Hippocratic Oath is to prioritize the patients well being, and maybe, juuust maybe, killing a patient or an unborn child isn’t good for the soon-to-be-dead’s “well being”.
Worse yet, this so-called “bioethicist” cites the Swedish argument (always a sure-fire example of moral and rational incorrectness), which provides a Hobson’s Choice:
“Schuklenk pointed to countries such as Sweden, where there is no legal right to conscientious refusal for workers in any profession, including in health care. This is also the case in Finland and Iceland.
“Sweden holds that because no one is forced to enter into a profession and may resign at any time, no one can be prevented from acting on their own moral or religious beliefs.”
This even worse than the Hobson’s Choice the Left has been pushing on cake-makers, florists, and photographers on the basis that if they enter into a profession, they must abandon all personal freedom and conviction; in those aforementioned cases all services involved voluntary services ancillary to human survival, while forcing doctors, who provide life-saving procedures and preventative medicine, to at best go beyond their Hippocratic duties, and at worst despoil the same, in order to perform medically unnecessary surgeries?
It is one thing to require that a doctor be willing to perform medically necessary surgeries, as well as other medically necessary services, as the doctor’s knowledge and understanding guide; it is another to force someone who is entrusted with the health and well being of human beings to engage in unnecessary procedures that result in death.
We have come from the dismissal of the Hippocratic Oath to the outright assault on the same.
No civilization can survive such an assault like this that goes on too long.