Abstract:
It's heartening to see that at least some in the medical community have decided to take a stand against cruel and unethical practices that violate the physicians' most basic creed: Do no harm....
Overall I agree with the author. The use of human based simulators, and when available, cadavers provides us with a more accurate outcome than operating on an animal with a different physiology.
I am however disappointed in the author's use of the Hippocratic Oath as the substantive support for not using animals as surgical substitutes.
The Oath has been abused quite a bit over the years and is often "updated" to fit the latest moralistic standards of its adherents. It cannot provide a sound platform from which to declare that the oath "to do no harm" now also encompasses non-sentient life forms.
By virtue of the existence of a Medical University which requires tuition (understandably) to educate concerning medical arts the original oath is already violated "to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation". This next part of the original oath would certainly meet with disfavor by today's morale standards, "and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion".
If the oath can be altered to meet changing standards as in the examples above than it has no genuine authority to dictate the definitions of harm and is no longer a creed. The author?s decision to use the Oath to cover harm to non-sentient life forms further exasperates this reality as he/she is altering its obvious original intent toward human beings to redefine the substance of what the oath covers. An Oath is an intention to define the parameters of one?s actions. If an oath can be rewritten every time its parameters are not liked than it ceases to be an oath and becomes nothing more than a series of good intentions will little real value or ability to restrict unethical behavior.
Animal conservation and wise stewardship of our planet is wise and should be practiced, but misusing an Oath to prove a point is a poor method of championship.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a non-profit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research
Not that there's anything wrong with advocating a vegetarian diet or animal rights, but the article makes it sound like they're just a group of concerned physicians, when they're more of an animal rights group composed of physicians.
Spring Break
Jason
posted 4/02/08 @ 1:28 PM EST
I am however disappointed in the author's use of the Hippocratic Oath as the substantive support for not using animals as surgical substitutes.
The Oath has been abused quite a bit over the years and is often "updated" to fit the latest moralistic standards of its adherents. It cannot provide a sound platform from which to declare that the oath "to do no harm" now also encompasses non-sentient life forms.
By virtue of the existence of a Medical University which requires tuition (understandably) to educate concerning medical arts the original oath is already violated "to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation". This next part of the original oath would certainly meet with disfavor by today's morale standards, "and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion".
If the oath can be altered to meet changing standards as in the examples above than it has no genuine authority to dictate the definitions of harm and is no longer a creed. The author?s decision to use the Oath to cover harm to non-sentient life forms further exasperates this reality as he/she is altering its obvious original intent toward human beings to redefine the substance of what the oath covers. An Oath is an intention to define the parameters of one?s actions. If an oath can be rewritten every time its parameters are not liked than it ceases to be an oath and becomes nothing more than a series of good intentions will little real value or ability to restrict unethical behavior.
Animal conservation and wise stewardship of our planet is wise and should be practiced, but misusing an Oath to prove a point is a poor method of championship.