Hippocratic Oath Essay

As a physician, it is your sworn duty to protect those that are being treated under the Hippocratic oath. Although there are different dictations of the original oath, they all have the same context. When the law comes into play, physicians should remain true to the oath. When physicians take this oath, they have an obligation to keep their patients from harm and injustice. As a Hippocratic oath pledgee, one is also vowing to neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor make a suggestion to this effect. In modern times, society’s pressure can cause physicians to conform, but as a future physician, forcibly medicating a patient for a progression to death will never be a portion of my practice.

Physicians are given their surname,

M.D., D.O., etc., under the assumption that they are helping to advance the overall health of the population through treating various diseases and illnesses. The American Medical Association defining that the direct participation in an execution is unethical is support for a physicians’ decision to not participate in forcibly administering medications to aid states in executions. A “direct” participation may be interpreted differently by psychiatrists. Some psychiatrists may believe that a direct participation is administering the lethal dose; other psychiatrists may believe that a direct participation is providing any form of treatment that allows the state to progress with the execution. The AMA’s code of ethics states: “as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution”. In other words, a practitioner may have his/her personal beliefs, but as a member of the profession using medical knowledge or treatments, ethical standards should apply (Boehnlein). Participating in this process in any treating fashion is against the Hippocratic oath. The psychiatrist may intend to only treat the patient for psychosis, but the ultimate result of this treatment is death of the patient. Forcing a treatment to aid the state’s execution can be compared to assisting a murderer in killing someone. We can’t expect physicians to perform tasks for the state that is considered accessory to murder in other instances. If the inmate poses a threat to his/her life or others’, physicians are practicing within the scope of the Hippocratic Oath; it is an effort to preserve life.
Ford v.

Wainwright held that executing the insane was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. When a practitioner provides antipsychotic drugs to help the inmate regain competency, they are exercising their medical knowledge and skill to preserve the inmate’s well-being. When the inmate regains competency, the proceedings for their execution continue because it is no longer considered a cruel or unusual punishment. Although our court systems allow this forceful treatment, it violates the inmate’s right to refuse a treatment. The practitioner’s role is within the scope of the Hippocratic oath because he/she is preserving life and is not prescribing/suggesting any lethal dose. Physicians monitor the health of the patient and procedures followed during an execution to ensure that the patient does not suffer during the punishment. Dr. Gawande researched capital punishments and found that lethal injection is the most accepted punishment, but has a history of being mismanaged and feels that they can be performed reliably with the presence of a medical professional (Cochrane). While practitioners play a conservational role in the proceedings of executions, they are ultimately assisting in executing the patient. In other words, the medical professional is implicitly suggesting that a lethal dose be prescribed. Participation by a practitioner in the execution proceeding, in any treatment capacity, is a violation of the Hippocratic oath and although it is not directly causing the death,

the physician knows that his/her treatment is a factor that leads to the death of the inmate. The issue does not lie in the direct impact that the treatment has on the instead, it lies in the implications for treatment, which violates the code of ethics by the AMA as well as the Hippocratic Oath. For this reason, it is not the best position to take as a medical professional.