The Hippocratic Oath: Misreading and Rereading an Ancient Text.

The Hippocratic oath is such an enduring icon of medical morality that physicians in Nazi Germany invoked it to protest Euthanasie, the systematized killing of weak or sick children, people with incurable diseases, hospitalized criminals (a category applicable to gays), geriatric patients, long-term patients, patients not of German blood (Jews and Romani), and people with disabilities. Several expert witnesses at the 1945 Nuremberg Medical Trial also cited the oath to condemn Nazi physicians' abuse of human research subjects. Noting these invocations, in 1947 the physicians who founded the World Medical Association modernized the Hippocratic oath to convey to future medical students its foundational precepts: benefitting the sick, not harming them, not breaching confidentiality, and not treating patients unjustly, irrespective of their gender or social status. This article presents a historically accurate reading of the oath's strange-seeming passages to show that it does not prohibit abortion, euthanasia (medical aid in dying), or surgery. The article also contends that oath-swearing remains an important asset in teaching clinicians their role responsibilities, and that its ethics supports women's rights to reproductive health care and can valorize challenges to venture-capitalist and for-profit managements that prioritize profitability over providing quality health care for patients.

[Historical comments on ethics in psychiatry : Challenges in the 19th century]. / Historische Anmerkungen zur Ethik in der Psychiatrie : Herausforderungen im 19. Jahrhundert.

With the emergence of an early psychiatry around 1800, a number of questions arose on dealing with a group of persons whose "alien", irritating and disruptive behavior was considered to be a phenomenon of being sick. In the context of the growing importance of human rights, the term humanitarianism attained a high relevance as the reference for early psychiatrists. Based on historical sources it is shown that despite a multitude of psychiatric beliefs on humanitarianism the established psychiatric practice was dominated by patriarchal order regimes up to the first decade of the twentieth century, later superimposed by the challenges of somatophysiological and experimental research as well as perceptions of biological racism. The associated new ethical questions were partially addressed within psychiatry but did not prevent an increase in the assessment of the mentally ill as "inferior".

[Historical aspects of ethics in psychiatry : From the end of humanitarianism up to the Human Rights Convention]. / Historisches zur Ethik in der Psychiatrie : Vom Ende der Humanität zur Menschenrechtskonvention.

The establishment of academic psychiatry was completed around 1900. Simultaneously, in view of the societal crisis phenomenon the professional self-concept of the psychiatrist was shifted to a self-image, according to which psychiatry had to place its expertise at the service of the people and the country. This was particularly expressed in World War I in the brutal dealing with the so-called war neurotics. In association with the so-called death by starvation of ca. 70,000 institution inmates, in the post-war period Karl Bonhoeffer debated a transformation of the term humanitarianism. The worst consequence of the rejection of humanitarian thoughts are the murders of invalids under National Socialism; however, legitimization of such crimes by alluding to collective ethics, as attempted by Karl Brandt, seems to be less than convincing. The reform of psychiatry initiated in the 1960s and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which came into force in 2008, have achieved prerequisites for a supportive psychiatry with reduced coercion, whereby many questions also in the legal and social systems must still be clarified.

Kazuto Kato: the ethics of editing humanity.

Gary Humphreys talks to Kazuto Kato about the ethical and societal challenges posed by biotechnologies that allow for the editing of the human genome.

Resuscitating Patient Rights during the Pandemic: COVID-19 and the Risk of Resurgent Paternalism.

The COVID-19 Pandemic a stress test for clinical medicine and medical ethics, with a confluence over questions of the proportionality of resuscitation. Drawing upon his experience as a clinical ethicist during the surge in New York City during the Spring of 2020, the author considers how attitudes regarding resuscitation have evolved since the inception of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders decades ago. Sharing a personal narrative about a DNR quandry he encountered as a medical intern, the author considers the balance of patient rights versus clinical discretion, warning about the risk of resurgent physician paternalism dressed up in the guise of a public health crisis.

Learning from the past in the COVID-19 era: rediscovery of quarantine, previous pandemics, origin of hospitals and national healthcare systems, and ethics in medicine.

After the dramatic coronavirus outbreak at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, on 11 March 2020, a pandemic was declared by the WHO. Most countries worldwide imposed a quarantine or lockdown to their citizens, in an attempt to prevent uncontrolled infection from spreading. Historically, quarantine is the 40-day period of forced isolation to prevent the spread of an infectious disease. In this educational paper, a historical overview from the sacred temples of ancient Greece-the cradle of medicine-to modern hospitals, along with the conceive of healthcare systems, is provided. A few foods for thought as to the conflict between ethics in medicine and shortage of personnel and financial resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 era are offered as well.

Person and ethics of a psychiatrist during National Socialism: Friedrich Meggendorfer (1880-1953).

Evaluation of sources not previously considered makes it possible to describe Friedrich Meggendorfer's role as a National Socialist university psychiatrist. Relevant archive material and literature were both assessed. The gene-hygiene affinity promulgated by Meggendorfer was based on his own scientific interests, early academic influences, and also positive reinforcement from his career choices. His application of scientific knowledge in the legitimization of National Socialist jurisdiction reflects a dark facet in Meggendorfer's life. One can also criticize his ethics in failing to use his eugenics expertise to stop 'euthanasia'. Future studies into the history of the ethical aspects of Nazi psychiatry should benefit from the setting up of criteria for the collection of biographical data. This would render comparisons and contrasts fairer and more stable.

Race, Kidney Transplants, Immunosuppression Research, and White Supremacy under Apartheid, 1960-80.

This paper uses the history of kidney transplantation in South Africa as a lens through which to write a racialized, micro history that illustrates the politics of medical discoveries and medical research at one of South Africa's most prestigious medical research universities, the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg. Between 1966 and the 1980s, the Wits team became the most advanced and prolific kidney transplant unit in the country. Yet the racist, oppressive Apartheid system fundamentally shaped these developments. Transplantation, as this paper shows, became an elite medical procedure, performed by a select group of white doctors on mostly white patients. For these doctors, transplantation showed their medical prowess and displayed the technical advancements they were able to make in research and clinical practice as they strove to position South Africa as a significant international player in medical research, despite academic boycotts and increasing sanctions. Transplantation became a symbol of white supremacy in a country where the black majority were excluded from anything but the most basic health care.

Why Was "Custom a Second Nature" in Early Modern Medicine?

"Custom is a second nature" is a saying that circulated long before the early modern period and in many different cultural settings. But the maxim had special salience, reference, and force in dietetic medicine from the late medieval period through the eighteenth century. What did that saying mean in the early modern medical setting? What presumptions about the body, about habitual ways of life, and about the authority of medical knowledge were inscribed within it? And what was the historical career of the saying as views of the body, its transactions with the environment, and the hereditary process changed through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries?

American Doctors at the Nuremberg Medical Trial.

Three Hippocratic physicians played critical roles in the prosecution of 23 Nazi doctors charged with murder and torture for conducting lethal medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. Two of the physicians, Leopold Alexander and Andrew C. Ivy, were Americans, and the other, Werner Leibbrandt, was German. At the 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial it is fitting to recall the three's influences and contributions to the formulation of strict research ethics rules, known as the Nuremberg Code. Their contributions help us better understand why they insisted on strict research rules and yet ultimately were unable to apply these rules to their own research. Exploring their contributions at Nuremberg may help us appreciate the continuing difficulty physician-researchers have with accepting public regulation of research.

The Physician's Duty to Treat During Pandemics.

Physicians assume a primary ethical duty to place the welfare of their patients above their own interests. Thus, for example, physicians must not exploit the patient-physician relationship for personal financial gain through the practice of self-referral. But how far does the duty to patient welfare extend? Must physicians assume a serious risk to their own health to ensure that patients receive needed care? In the past, physicians were expected to provide care during pandemics without regard to the risk to their own health. In recent decades, however, the duty to treat during pandemics has suffered from erosion even while the risks to physicians from meeting the duty has gone down. After exploring the historical evolution of the duty to treat and the reasons for the duty, I conclude that restoring a strong duty to treat would protect patient welfare without subjecting physicians to undue health risks.

The relevance of the Hippocratic Oath to the ethical and moral values of contemporary medicine. Part I: The Hippocratic Oath from antiquity to modern times.

The present paper discusses the relevance and significance of the Hippocratic Oath to contemporary medical ethical and moral values. It attempts to answer the questions about some controversial issues related to the Oath. The text is divided in two parts. Part I discusses the general attributes and ethical values of the Oath, while Part II presents a detailed analysis of each passage of the Oath with regard to perennial ethical principles and moral values. Part I starts with the contribution of Hippocrates and his School of Cos to medicine. It continues by examining the moral dilemmas concerning physicians and patients in the Classical Times and in the Modern World. It also investigates how the Hippocratic Oath stands nowadays, with regard to the remarkable and often revolutionary advancements in medical practice and the significant evolution in medical ethics. Further, it presents the debate and the criticism about the relevance of the general attributes and ethical values of the Oath to those of modern societies. Finally, it discusses the endurance of the ethical values of the Hippocratic Oath over the centuries until today with respect to the physicians' commitment to the practice of patient-oriented medicine. Part I concludes with the Oath's historic input in the Judgment delivered at the close of the Nuremberg "Doctors' Trial"; this Judgement has become legally binding for the discipline in the Western World and was the basis of the Nuremberg Code. The ethical code of the Oath turned out to be a fundamental part of western law not only on medical ethics but also on patients' rights regarding research.

Lectures on Inhumanity: Teaching Medical Ethics in German Medical Schools Under Nazism.

Nazi medicine and its atrocities have been explored in depth over the past few decades, but scholars have started to examine medical ethics under Nazism only in recent years. Given the medical crimes and immoral conduct of physicians during the Third Reich, it is often assumed that Nazi medical authorities spurned ethics. However, in 1939, Germany introduced mandatory lectures on ethics as part of the medical curriculum. Course catalogs and archival sources show that lectures on ethics were an integral part of the medical curriculum in Germany between 1939 and 1945. Nazi officials established lecturer positions for the new subject area, named Medical Law and Professional Studies, at every medical school. The appointed lecturers were mostly early members of the Nazi Party and imparted Nazi political and moral values in their teaching. These values included the unequal worth of human beings, the moral imperative of preserving a pure Aryan people, the authoritarian role of the physician, the individual's obligation to stay healthy, and the priority of public health over individual-patient care. This article shows that there existed not only a Nazi version of medical ethics but also a systematic teaching of such ethics to students in Nazi Germany. The findings illustrate that, from a historical point of view, the notion of "eternal values" that are inherent to the medical profession is questionable. Rather, the prevailing medical ethos can be strongly determined by politics and the zeitgeist and therefore has to be repeatedly negotiated.

The history of autonomy in medicine from antiquity to principlism.

Respect for Autonomy (RFA) has been a mainstay of medical ethics since its enshrinement as one of the four principles of biomedical ethics by Beauchamp and Childress' in the late 1970s. This paper traces the development of this modern concept from Antiquity to the present day, paying attention to its Enlightenment origins in Kant and Rousseau. The rapid C20th developments of bioethics and RFA are then considered in the context of the post-war period and American socio-political thought. The validity and utility of the RFA are discussed in light of this philosophical-historical account. It is concluded that it is not necessary to embrace an ethic of autonomy in order to guard patients from coercion or paternalism, and that, on the contrary, the dominance of autonomy threatens to undermine those very things which have helped doctors come to view and respect their patients as persons.

[Historical pain concepts : Cultural influences on pain perception and interpretation]. / Historische Schmerzkonzepte : Kulturelle Einflüsse auf Schmerzempfindung und -deutung.

In the age of globalization and cultural diversification differing concepts of pain in patient care are of increasing importance. Historical models of the origin and interpretation of pain, which in this article are presented in a cursory and exemplary way, help to understand the panoply of modern concepts outside of medicine. Basically, pain was viewed not only in religion and philosophy but also by premodern physicians as a psychophysical phenomenon crucially depending on the determination by a "soul" therefore creating therapeutic options even before the discovery of an effective analgesia. Furthermore, the historical interpretations of pain in and outside of medicine can still be of profound importance to patients even today.

Banning the Soviet Lobotomy: Psychiatry, Ethics, and Professional Politics during Late Stalinism.

This article examines how lobotomy came to be banned in the Soviet Union in 1950. The author finds that Soviet psychiatrists viewed lobotomy as a treatment of "last resort," and justified its use on the grounds that it helped make patients more manageable in hospitals and allowed some to return to work. Lobotomy was challenged by psychiatrists who saw mental illness as a "whole body" process and believed that injuries caused by lobotomy were therefore more significant than changes to behavior. Between 1947 and 1949, these theoretical and ethical debates within Soviet psychiatry became politicized. Psychiatrists competing for institutional control attacked their rivals' ideas using slogans drawn from Communist Party ideological campaigns. Party authorities intervened in psychiatry in 1949 and 1950, persecuting Jewish psychiatrists and demanding adherence to Ivan Pavlov's theories. Psychiatrists' existing conflict over lobotomy was adopted as part of the party's own campaign against harmful Western influence in Soviet society.