The Conclusion of the Hippocratic Oath

What is ethics in the first place?

Recently, a medical organization in Japan, which is supporting the victims of mRNA vaccines, declared on Twitter that they would act under the noble principles of the Hippocratic Oath, citing the following passage:

Hippocratic Oath:

In accordance with my ability and judgment, I will choose the treatment that seems to benefit the patient, and I will never choose a treatment that I believe may cause harm.

When I read this passage, I felt a direct confrontation with the ignorance of MDs who are intoxicated by Western medicine, and I was struck with dizziness. This passage of the Hippocratic Oath precisely reflects the thinking of modern-day MDs. In other words, the principle of the Hippocratic Oath can be reinterpreted as the following negation proposition:

Hippocratic Oath:

If an MD's ability and intelligence are lacking, it is acceptable to choose treatments that harm the patient, and there is no problem with selecting treatments that the MD does not realize are harmful.

This is indeed completely consistent with what we are witnessing today. Why did they quote such a foolish passage? It is because they fundamentally possess a tendency to unquestioningly believe the information given to them, due to their superior mental processing abilities.

From my perspective, anyone who believes that the Hippocratic Oath, proposed in ancient Greece, is still relevant today is out of their mind. This was a time when humanity sacrificed offerings, performed prayers, and practiced witchcraft and sorcery to fend off plagues.

In an era without the variety of chemical medicines we have today, the question arises: What constituted a harmful treatment? Perhaps poison mushrooms, aconite, mercury, arsenic, and so on? Bloodletting therapy might also have been practiced.

Even if I were told by them, "I will never choose a treatment that I believe may cause harm," with such values of that era, I can't help but wonder: Were there any MDs who could correctly judge what constituted "harm" in the first place?

The Hippocratic Oath clearly reflects an arrogant value system that asserts the MD's ability, knowledge, and judgment are absolutely correct. However, the fact that this mindset is still ingrained in modern society suggests that the Hippocratic Oath itself contains a powerful principle designed to elevate the power and authority of MDs.

The Hippocratic Oath was modernized in 1948 with the Declaration of Geneva (Link: World Medical Association), and it was revised again in 2017, but the fundamental principles have not changed.

FYI: Wikipedia

In the 1948 modernization, the principle "I will never choose a treatment that I believe may cause harm" was removed. This can be positively interpreted as possibly considering "the right to die with dignity," but the truth may be "all medicines have potential harm."

The medical community presents the Hippocratic Oath and the Geneva Declaration to us as their sacred and universal ethical framework.

But what is "ethics" in the first place?

"Ethics" refers to the "standards for determining what constitutes right behavior." However, the Hippocratic Oath and the Geneva Declaration merely present a "belief system designed to guide the behavior of the medical community and MDs," without providing any concrete "standards for what constitutes right behavior."

The "belief system aimed at guiding the behavior of a specific group or individuals" is precisely what we call "ideology."

The Hippocratic Oath is an unethical ideology, and the Geneva Declaration, which follows it, is also an unethical ideology. These ideologies have functioned, for better or worse, as the "origin of the sanctification and legitimization of medicine."

However, the very structure of these ideologies, which rely on the "MD's ability and judgment," allows for the possibility of erroneous treatments when the MD's knowledge or ethical standards are underdeveloped. Furthermore, neither of these ideologies prevents "acts that cause harm to the patient"; rather, they function as excuses for MDs to justify erroneous actions.

The Hippocratic Oath and the Geneva Declaration have already reached their limits in modern society, and it is clear that these oaths no longer fit contemporary society.

If these oaths were universal ethical principles of the medical community, the issue of drug harm would never end and would continue to repeat itself in the same way…

If we cannot acknowledge that these oaths are flawed and erroneous, the issue of drug harm will persist in the future…

I will continue to think about medicine and ethics…