The Hippocratic Oath Provides Arguments For And Against Euthanasia Being Considered Medical Care

1238 Words Dec 13th, 2016 5 Pages
The previous section outlined how interpretation or understanding of the Hippocratic Oath provides arguments for and against Euthanasia being considered medical care. However, I find that the Oath, even if not taken literally, shapes a special ethic in medicine that should continue to be upheld. The spirit of the Oath, as mentioned earlier, offers to patients a sense of what they expect from their physicians- ultimate care. It took years to form the long-standing ethical norms in the patient-physician relationship and allowing physicians to euthanize patients threatens this central norm. Physicians enter the profession, or patients at least hope, with the intention of caring for patients. The killing of a patient, even though it has the potential to be interpreted as terminating suffering, does not constitute care.
Cassell does argue that the relief of suffering is the fundamental goal of medicine, and serving this need might mean killing the patients. Additionally, he argues that the treatment offered by physicians is often the source of a patient’s suffering. Proponents of physicians’ participation in euthanasia argue that since in numerous cases, the source of a patient’s suffering is the development of technologies that help patient to live longer lives under painful conditions, which leads them to want to die peacefully: physicians should be held partly responsible for the conditions and therefore are obligated to help in the relief of patients’ suffering. The…

Related Documents