| Welcome to Health 411. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Hippocratic Oath | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 24 2007, 06:35 PM (147 Views) | |
| AloeGal | Aug 24 2007, 06:35 PM Post #1 |
|
TV Host
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The AMA Should Prefer Hippocratic Oath to Hypocrisy 6/30/2005 By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel Premiere medical association disses pharmacists’ right of conscience. Commentary The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a measure June 20 in favor of legislation mandating that pharmacists fill prescriptions for all legal drugs, including those that cause abortions. “This is an issue of access to care for patients,” Dr. Mary Frank, a California physician told delegates before the vote, according to Life News. The measure is a response to pharmacists in Illinois who’ve filed three lawsuits to stop Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) executive order that forces pharmacists to dispense all lawful drugs. The pharmacists claim that the order violates Illinois law, which allows medical professionals to opt out of morally offensive acts. The AMA says it supports a pharmacist’s right to refuse to prescribe some drugs, but wants pharmacists to make sure a patient has access to the drugs by making an “immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference,” according to the resolution. Many pharmacists say that’s the same as forcing them to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs. I like doctors. But then, I like lawyers. As with other professions, members tend to be far more conservative than the leadership who set the policies of their particular trade associations, such as the American Bar Association and the AMA. The AMA’s Code of Ethics grants physicians the right to decline to accept an individual as a patient. Section E-9.06 Free Choice states in part: “Although the concept of free choice assures that an individual can generally choose a physician, likewise a physician may decline to accept that individual as a patient.” There’s no mention of a duty to refer the individual to an “appropriate alternative” physician. One would think that since the AMA protects the right of doctors to decline to accept a patient, it would respect and support the right of pharmacists to decline a customer, especially when based on matters of conscience. But the AMA’s zealous support of abortion seems to matter more than consistency. The AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics states in part: "A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals." Does the AMA not consider pharmacists to be health professionals worthy of respect? Until a few decades ago, the AMA was unapologetically pro-life. The AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion Report of 1859 referred to “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being.” The AMA adopted resolutions protesting “against such unwarrantable destruction of human life,” calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws. In 1970, an AMA Committee noted “polarization of the medical profession on this controversial issue.” It was “felt to be influenced by the rapid changes in state laws and by the judicial decisions which tend to make abortion more freely available.” Roe v. Wade (1973). The AMA states its position on the ancient Hippocratic Oath on its Web site: “The AMA does not have formal policy related to the [Hippocratic] Oath. Some of the tenets of the Oath represent long-standing ethical traditions that the AMA supports, while others are somewhat outdated.” The Oath states in part: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Apparently, the part about not giving a woman an “abortive remedy” is “outdated.” Section E-2.01 Abortion states: “The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV) Issued prior to April 1977.” The AMA does require members to adhere to its ethical code: “[E]very physician who is a member of the AMA must uphold the AMA’s Principles of Medical Ethics.” It violates the AMA Code of Ethics for a physician to assist in the voluntary suicide of a patient who requests such assistance. Section E-2.211 Physician Assisted Suicide states in part: [A]llowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. One wonders if and when the AMA will conclude that the part about not giving “a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it” is “outdated” as well. It is also unethical for its members to participate in state-ordered executions. Section E-2.06 Capital Punishment states in part: A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution. Physician participation in execution is defined generally as actions which would … directly cause … assist … or contribute to the death of the condemned; or an action which would assist, supervise, or contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the death of the condemned. Let’s recap: It’s ethical for AMA members to refuse to take a patient. It’s ethical for AMA members to kill the unborn who have no due process rights. It’s unethical for AMA members to help a competent adult kill himself even though a state law permits it. It’s unethical for AMA members to participate in state-ordered executions of convicted murderers who’ve enjoyed full due process rights. The Illinois pharmacists fighting for conscientious principle might want to send an Rx to the AMA: Physicians, heal thyself. This article first appeared in Human Events Online |
|
Blessings, AloeGal You never know why you're alive until you know what you would die for....I would die for You. ~ Mercy Me | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · Other Health · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




6:40 PM Jul 10