2006-07-08 23:19:43 · 14 answers · asked by cordelia 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
the modern version of the hippocratic oath is:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
2006-07-08 23:24:39 · answer #1 · answered by Ivanhoe Fats 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seeking to prolong life when the quality of your life is in a miserable state would not be a very wise thing to do now would it?
Doctors, nurses and all the wonderful people in medical sciencs try to find cures to diseases, they develope vaccines so that we'll be immune to these diseases in the future. What they are doing is improving our quality of life and, in turn, they enable us to live longer healthier lives.
Quality of life is therefore way better than seeking to solely prolong life. With great quality, the other factor will just fall nicely into place.
2006-07-10 05:35:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this question should address quality of life. In theory, no, it should not. If someone is on a ventilator, feeding tube, in irreversible coma, terminal illness. But in reality medical science does seek to prolong life. I'm an RN that works on a cancer floor. You would not imagine the number of terminal cancer patients that DO want to be resuscitated if they code. These folks KNOW they are dying, but still want to live. There's the answer, I suppose. They want to live. That' s not always the case. The only way to address the question is to presume everyone does want to live and treat each life with dignity and respect. We all die eventually anyway. Nobody's any the worse off for a doctor trying to extend their life. And no doctor could in good conscience not try to prolong life. Hippocratic oath and lawsuits would see to that.
2006-07-08 23:30:40 · answer #3 · answered by Uncle Heinrich the Great 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all.
The prime objectives are to relieve and prevent suffering and thereby increase quality of life. The prevention of suffering (by the prevention of disease) does often have the effect of prolonging life, but this is incidental.
It's important to bear in mind that In some cases seeking to prolong life actually prolongs and increases suffering.
2006-07-09 06:35:32 · answer #4 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Medical science should seek to fight and prevent diseases and disorders, whatever that may entail. I'm not a subscriber to assisted suicide, if that's what you're hinting at, but it's not my place to tell someone else how to live (or not live).
2006-07-08 23:25:23 · answer #5 · answered by Zombie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. a procedures too in many circumstances technological information prolongs existence that has no high quality. the fellow is purely mendacity there being a respiratory corpse it is poked and prodded each day. now and again its purely ideal to allow bypass of them and go away them in peace.
2016-11-30 22:13:08 · answer #6 · answered by suzette 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean simply increase the number of calendar pages a guy flips over or the number of candles he sticks on his cake, NO!!! Life without quality is no fun and shouldn't have to be endured by anyone.
2006-07-10 12:15:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not always, when pain outweighs comfort then the disease has won and we should continue to provide comfort without seeking to prolong. Quantity does not always outweigh quality.
2006-07-09 03:15:24 · answer #8 · answered by dianescor 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sometimes, the goal needs to be to improve the quality of life.
And, also, to ease the pain and process of dying.
2006-07-08 23:24:50 · answer #9 · answered by treefrog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO FREAKING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless they can make the old guys stay healthy and strong
But this will make more waste and crowd the planet even more
the point is we dont need to be around that long
we just need to cherrish what we have!
2006-07-09 01:08:09 · answer #10 · answered by CHIKENMAN 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋