Do not kill is seen as an intangible principle
Guillaume Durand
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Medicine
In the original Hippocratic Oath, appears the phrase: “I will not give poison to anyone, if asked, or initiate such a suggestion.” “ A statement to be placed in the context of the time, when poison was a widespread resort for suicide or murder.
In contemporary times, this phrase has become: ” I never deliberately provoke death “. Behind, you read the ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide.
It is on the basis of this article that the vast majority of physicians oppose active assistance in dying. Giving death is not the doctor’s role, they say. However, the law allows these same doctors to stop treatment, in agreement with the patient. In the name of the prohibition of unreasonable obstinacy, when the treatment is no longer considered beneficial, but deleterious for the patient, whose vital prognosis is moreover engaged, in the short or medium term.
Yes, the patient is going to die, but the death is not meant to be intentional. It is only the natural result of the progression of the disease. A fragile argument, but an argument.
—-
It depends on how you interpret it
Philippe Loheac
General Delegate of ADMD (association for the right to die with dignity)
To oppose active assistance in dying, many physicians are taking refuge behind the Hippocratic Oath. However, in addition to the fact that this text is evolving (abortion has been legalized for nearly forty years, bladder surgery has become a common operation, medical teachers are paid, contrary to what the original oath recommends … ), certain passages brandished like a standard actually support our demands.
First the sentence “I will not give death deliberately”: all the nuance is in this adverb, deliberately. A doctor who helps a patient to die does not “Not kill to kill” in the sense that he “Do not murder” deliberately. Giving death is not his motive, nor his intention. The motive is to relieve suffering. At the request of the patient.
In this, active assistance in dying does not conflict with the Hippocratic Oath, on the contrary. She even joins another article, stating: ” I do not unreasonably prolong the agony. “ If the current law were to evolve and allow active assistance in dying, then there would not even be a need to rewrite the text again. Everything is, in fact, a question of interpretation.
.
