The Hippocratic Oath has been in a parlous state, especially in the past three decades, since the rise of contemporary bioethics. Ethicists, historians, feminists, and patients' rights activists have all, for one reason or another, disparaged it. The Oath has been called outmoded, an instrument of gender discrimination, a device for professional monopoly, out of tune with societal mores, and inadequate to meet the moral demands of modern medical practice. Critics seem to agree that the Oath must be revised, replaced by a new ethic or left to physician and patient to decide for themselves.
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC, USA 20007.
Correspondence: jtm6@georgetown.edu
- 1. Orr RD, Pang N, Pellegrino ED, Siegler M. Use of the Hippocratic Oath: a review of twentieth century practice and a content analysis of oaths administered in medical schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993. J Clin Ethics 1997; 8: 377-388.
- 2. Pellegrino ED. Professional codes. In: Sugarman J, Sulmasy D, editors. Methods in medical ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001: 80-87.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.