Hippocratic Oath: Past, Present or Future?
Dmitry Balalykin, Dr.Med., Dr.Hist., Ph.D. in Philosophy, Full Professor / Leading Research Fellow, Institution/Organization FSSBI «N.A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health»
In the text of the Hippocratic Oath there are two noteworthy postulates that are highly complimented by the Christian tradition: “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course” and “Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion”. At the same time, the fundamental postulation of these two principles in a rather short text is completely illogical for the Ancient tradition of 4th-1st centuries BC (I intentionally leave aside the question of dating the first known oath text). Indeed, the rejection of suicide is a fundamental position of Christian doctrine. However, in Antiquity the suicide was an important part of the public consciousness. It was not only prohibited – it was encouraged and even heroized. Just like it starts being heroized nowadays within the framework of a neoliberal morality called "euthanasia". The rejection of abortion is also one of the fundamental parts of Christian doctrine, and, at the same time, the absolute norm in the life of Greco-Roman society till the time of late Antiquity. Now in the framework of neoliberal consciousness abortion is also heroized as “women's right to choose”. It should be noted that doctrines that are completely inherent in the public consciousness of the times of Hippocrates and his followers are formulated among the fundamental ones. There is an obvious presence of two postulates in the text of the Hippocratic Oath that are completely foreign to the public consciousness of that time. It is also obvious that the benevolent acceptance of the Hippocratic doctrine by the subsequent Christian tradition should be associated with these particular postulates and considered in the general context of the adoption by Christians of strictly defined aspects of "Hellenic wisdom". Consideration of these principles in the general context of the history of rational medicine (from the time of its inception in the 5th century BC to the present day) allows us to define rejection of abortion and euthanasia as certain “red lines” of traditional medical ethics.
In the history of science (and medicine, in particular), in a purely gnoseological context, much attention is paid to the problem of the "commensurability" of scientific knowledge from different periods. However, obviously it is necessary to analyze not only the development of theories of etiology and pathogenesis or approaches to the treatment of various diseases. Here, history firmly distinguishes the “red lines” that separate scientific knowledge from unscientific. I argue that one should also separate the bioethical doctrines, which develop the tradition of medicine of Hippocrates and Galen, from those that change this medicine, turning it into something other. This “other” may seem more technological, or it can be monstrous.
In the history of science (and medicine, in particular), in a purely gnoseological context, much attention is paid to the problem of the "commensurability" of scientific knowledge from different periods. However, obviously it is necessary to analyze not only the development of theories of etiology and pathogenesis or approaches to the treatment of various diseases. Here, history firmly distinguishes the “red lines” that separate scientific knowledge from unscientific. I argue that one should also separate the bioethical doctrines, which develop the tradition of medicine of Hippocrates and Galen, from those that change this medicine, turning it into something other. This “other” may seem more technological, or it can be monstrous.