Do doctors still take an oath to, “Do no harm”?
474142
I Have three different versions of The Hippocratic Oath. Hope they help. I also have stuff on Primum non nocere(First, Do no harm).\n\nPrimum non nocere\nPrimum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm." The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.\nIt is one of the principal precepts all medical students are taught in medical school. It reminds a physician that he or she must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is most often mentioned when debating use of an intervention with an obvious chance of harm but a less certain chance of benefit.\nSince at least 1860, the phrase has been a hallowed expression for physicians of hope, intention, humility, and recognition that human acts with good intentions may have unwanted consequences.\nThe origin of the phrase is not widely known; contrary to popular belief, the phrase is not in the Hippocratic Oath. However, it is often described as a Latin paraphrase by Galen of a Hippocratic aphorism (despite the fact that Galen also wrote in Greek rather than Latin); yet no specific mention in Galen's writings has been reported. The closest approximation to the phrase that can be found in the Hippocratic Corpus is "to help, or at least to do no harm," taken from Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI.\nAccording to Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Navarre, Primum non nocere was introduced into American and British medical culture by Worthington Hooker in his 1847 book, Physician and Patient. Hooker attributed it to the :Parisian pathologist and clinician Auguste François Chomel (1788–1858), the successor of Läennec in the chair of medical pathology, and the preceptor of Pierre Louis. Apparently, the axiom was part of Chomel's oral teaching. :—"The origin of primum non nocere." British Medical Journal electronic responses and commentary, 1 September 2002.\nHowever, close examination reveals that Hooker did not use the specific expression or the traditional Latin phrase. A detailed investigation of the origins of the aphorism was reported by the clinical pharmacologist Cedric M. Smith in the April issue of the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. It addresses the questions of the origin and chronology of appearance of the maxim. Rather than being of ancient origin as usually assumed, the specific expression, and its even more unique associated Latin phrase, has been traced back to an attribution to Thomas Sydenham (1624–1689) in a book by T. Inman (1860). The book by Inman, and his attribution, was reviewed by "H.H." in the American Journal of Medical Science in the same year. A prominent American surgeon, L.A. Stimson, used the expression in 1879 and again in 1906 (in the same journal). That it was in common use by the turn of the century is apparent from later mentions, such as by the prominent obstretician J. Whitridge Williams in 1911, as well as detailed discussion of its use in a popular book authored by Dr. Morris Fishbein, the long-time editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1930.\n\n"First, do no harm": Not in the Hippocratic Oath \nIt is a widely held misconception that the familiar dictum "First, do no harm" comes from the Hippocratic Oath, an oath many physicians take when they enter medical practice.\nHowever, the Hippocratic Oath does not and never did contain those words (nor was it actually written by Hippocrates, according to many sources). It expresses a similar idea, but never employs the words "First, do no harm." \nIt is the opinion of many scholars that Hippocrates did, in fact, originate the phrase, but did so in his Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI. One translation reads: "Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm."\nThe Greek "First, do no harm" becomes "Pr
661700
A medical doctor? If they're doing it right they shouldn't have any bruises...
850605
There's no law against it, but the general consensus among doctors is that it's somehow beneath them or otherwise unethical to advertise. Believe it or not, the same was once true of lawyers. Ha!
1086522
YOU ALWAYS HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE.  \n\nThough if you are a male, part of the exam is a hernia check in the groin area (ie turn and cough and doc's finger in the inguinal area).  I will say that if a doctor fails to do this or does not at least offer it, he is not doing his job.  Now...if he offers and you refuse, the doctor can easily document on the exam that you refused and his butt is covered.  Though I don't know if the sport program will allow you to play.
310447
I really sympathize with you, this past summer I had horrible side effects with medication and also need to file bankruptcy because of the affect it had on my ability to work. Unfortunately, unless you have insurance they may be able to refuse you. The Hippocratic oath is only for life/death emergencies or other catastrophic events. Best of luck in your rebuilding process.
967616
The only way they know how.  That's just a little bit more than the law will allow.\n\nBut it's ok because they don't mean no harm.
518725
It's not ethical.\n\nCurrent medical ethics guidelines require explicit written consent to perform a pelvic exam under general anesthesia. I also don't know any nurses or resident physicians that wouldn't immediatly turn in an attending physician for pulling a stunt like that. In fact, my med school class was specifically told to immediately report any such activity to the department chief. \n\nTo be fair, it is sometimes medically necessary to perform a pelvic exam under anesthesia, but in all cases this will be discussed with the patient and written consent must be obtained beforehand.\n\nUnfortunately, in the old days "practice" pelvic exams did indeed happen. The reason is that when a person is under general anesthesia their muscles are completely relaxed, and it's much easier to palpate the ovaries and uterus. This was once seen as a way to teach young physicians or medical students how to properly perform a pelvic exam. I'm not sure how widespread this practice ever was, but it definitely did happen. Fortunately, with the push for improved patient's rights and autonomy over the past 20 years, this practice has been abandoned.\n\nPart of the HIPAA act guarantees you the right to a copy of your medical records. Further, if you can prove this happened you can definitely sue (and win). The problem is that no physician is going to document something like this in your medical record.  \n\nYou might start by getting a copy of your records and talking with your doctor. If you aren't satisfied with the response, most hospitals have a patient's advocate with whom you can file a formal complaint. These people often do a good job of investigating complaints and may help resolve the problem. \n\nYou should also be aware that the hospital keeps a detailed log of all personnel who where in the OR that day, so it's always possible to track down anyone who might have seen anything happen. If you reach the stage of dealing with a patient's advocate, you should definitely ask whether they have spoken to the other people present in the OR that day. \n\nIf all else fails, you can always hire an attourney.
226177
There is an alternative oath in which the witness affirms, not swears, that his or her testimony will be truthful.  Obviously the 'so help me God' terminology is left off.
17362
One of the rights everyone has is to be prevented by others from harming\noneself.  But the laws on this are pretty strictly drawn in most states.  To be\nhospitalized in a mental health ward against one's will, can only be done if\na person is judged to be an IMMINENT danger to oneself or others, and/or\ngravely disabled, the latter meaning one cannot deal/provide for the basic\nnecessities of life -- all these criteria under this further condition: BASED ON\nmental illness.  So when a mother some years back wanted me to do an\ninvoluntary hospitalization, because her kid was running with a gang which\nshe viewed as harmful to him, I had to explain the "based on" condition \nwritten into the law.   Moreover, an involuntary hospitalization is usually \nknown as a "72 hour hold" -- after which the hospital  staff would have to go to the judge and seek a 'short term certification', usually 30 days, after that\nback to court again, sometimes for a longer term.  But those judgments are\nnot lightly given, because another part of the law, at least in many states, is\nthat patients be in "THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE SETTING" during all phases of\ntheir care, unless the aforesaid issues of harm came into play.\n\nFinally, straight jackets are seldom used.  Some facilities, including jails and\nlocked youth facilities, have literally a rubber room -- every surface covered\nwith soft rubber.  If they did not, a violently angry teenager who has been \nthrough simply horrendous abuse, would hurl herself or himself at an iron\ndoor, head first, to do as much damage as possible.  Underneath it all they\nare effectively saying, "You wanna hurt me.  I'll hurt me, and I'll do it so bad\nyou and no one else will ever forget it -- so bad you and this staff here\ncould not match me in their wildest dreams, because i will harm myself\nbeyond imagination."   I've heard kids say this, then hurl themselves against\nan iron door, doing as they say, terrible damage.   But one of their rights\nis to be protected from acting out that anger, since it effectively allows the\nabuser to get another period of pain out of them.  And that's not ok -- our\njob is to keep them safe until we can work with them to the point where they\nsee that the best response to abuse is to say, "you (the abuser) are not going\nto get one more second out of my life.  And I will have a happy and wonder-ful life in spite of you."\n\nEveryone has a right to get to that point, even if it takes a straight jacket to\nkeep them safe long enough to get there.\n\nAnd the adjective "gay" in your question should be utterly irrelevant and\nimmaterial to the entire set of perameters I have described.   Fortunately\nsociety is going through a sea change in its acceptance of gay people\n(though it certainly can't happen fast enough).  But you will quickly find that\nno licensed professional, and no credentialed institution will dare base any\nof their treatment of an individual on his/her sexual preference.   Already\nI believe we have passed the tipping point in that regard, though it may not\nbe evident to residents of certain towns, cities, and states.
1168823
That it can force a person to go against their own oaths if the end result is the best possible outcome for the majority of those involved.\nIn short, there is no room in utilitarianism for personal integrity.
181043
Medical information is supposed to be confidential, but there are some exceptions.  One of them is that doctors are obliged to report on the victims of domestic violence or child abuse, and presumably rape more generally, at least if the patient is unconscious and cannot say they don't want it reported.\n\nSuch a report might indeed result in a warrantless search if the threat to life and safety was imminent.  There may be other exceptions to the doctor/patient confidentiality rules regarding drugs; I don't know.
1008293
It seems that what bothers you most is the inconsistency of laws.  We have laws that are supposedly in place (like the seatbelt law) to protect ourselves from harming ourselves -- yet we have not legislated all forms of self-harm.  What I find most annoying is the artificiality of saying we pass these laws to "save lives."  I believe the reality is that we pass these laws to save other taxpayers for picking up the cost of a person's health care if they've chosen self harming behavior.  (Examples:  seat belts, motorcycle helmets, recreational drug use.)  If we were just honest, and said these things are illegal because we as a society don't want to have to bear the costs associated with medically caring for those injured as a result of less "safe" behavior, I think most of us would find such laws much less distasteful.
1160251
Ask the doctor.  There is no central database with that information.\n\nYour state's licensing board may be able to provide information about actions taken against a particular physician, and that might help steer you away from someone dishonest/dangerous.\n\nYou need to be careful just looking at statistics.  Would you avoid a doctor with a higher death rate if you found out he/she was the only one willing to take on very difficult/hopeless cases, where patients were more likely to die anyway?
112106
I don't know about any such laws but we do take a hypocratic oath just like doctors, to aid the patients in need.  The oath isn't as long as doctors' though.\n\nYES, you can take a nap.  We do it all the time in the nurses lounge.  Sometimes if one of us has worked a double shift we'll step in for each other, take their shift, so the exausted one can get some sleep at home.\n\nNow if you're on the graveyard shift(11:00pm-7:00am) and it's just a typical night, you better not be taking naps.\n\nThat would be a good way to get fired.
1054910
Bloody oath can i pull the trigger   a worried father
1094993
ROFL... so much fun!  Nice word play.  I'd say that the doctor needing the doctoring will have to submit to the doctor doing the doctoring on the doctor that needs the doctoring.  It would be unethical for the doctor who needs the doctoring to try to tell the doctoring doctor how to do his job.  That is why the doctor who needs doctoring went to the doctor doing the doctoring in the first place, right?  LOL  - fun.
853171
No way, police officers swear to UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF THE LAW and selling their rights that they swore under oath should never be messed with. For one, officers who do this should not have the priviledge of being a police officer let alone working for the government.