The Hippocratic Oath Vs Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material" brings to mind the Hippocratic Oath, which states "first do no harm." Creating life simply to destroy it in the name of medical research is indeed harmful and disputes the oath that doctors take.

"First do no harm" has been the solemn oath of generations of physicians. In the words of Ted Levine, "Of all the writings in the Hippocratic Collection, none is more widely familiar than The Oath." (56). Over the course of history, many have tried to lessen pain and illness, but Hippocrates is considered to be one of the greatest pioneers in the medical field, and he is thought to be the father of medicine.

One thing that is manifest today, Hippocrates was very educated and was the first in changing the medical views of the world around him by giving physicians an independent standing, separating him from the nature logician. Hippocrates also focused on scientific origin rather than fallacy.

One of his ideas was to strengthen the patient by trying to detail diagnosis and classification of disease rather than ignoring the patient. Astounding advances in the medical profession are acknowledged to Hippocrates, but most likely he is known for his work on teaching new members of the medical field. In the fifth century BC, Hippocrates wrote an oath for doctors to follow and that oath is still in effect today. The promise, called The Hippocratic Oath, detailed the rights of the patient under their doctor's care and set an ethical standard. The oath is two parts in its specifications. The first part outlines the duties of a student toward his or her educator and their obligations in dispensing medical knowledge. The second half deals with medical ethics, an idea truly unique for that era in history. The following is a summary of the Hippocratic Oath: "The Hippocratic Oath…pledges the physician to work for the good of the patient, to do him or her no harm, to prescribe no deadly drugs, and to keep confidential medical information regarding the patient." We still use this oath today with it being a standard in medicine and a doctor who is found lacking in this promise can lose his or her license to practice medicine. One might hear the most common ellipsis of this oath in the popular motto, "first do no harm."

"First do no harm" might have been the solemn oath of generations of physicians, but advocates of fetal stem cell research would have us believe it is not a crisis. Some even say that it would be immoral not to conduct these experiments. The basis of their assertion is the possibility that the therapies derived from stem cell research could potentially alleviate the suffering of millions. This logic is unsupportable because destroying a life in order to save another is irrational. Stem cell research requires the destruction of living human beings. Only human beings produce the precious stem cells that scientists desire. So, to get enough of them for research purposes, babies, even embryos eight weeks old in the womb, must be aborted and die.

From the Hippocratic Oath of the 4th Century BC to modern day doctors, medical ethics explicitly prohibit the harming of human life. If fetal stem cell research causes the fetus to be destroyed, then how is this upholding the vow that a doctor makes to do no harm?

As Mark Green states, "If the early embryo is morally equivalent to any other human being, why should its abandonment and imminent death justify research on it?" (78) Many people would oppose using stem cells unless it could be shown that his use was indisputably, ethically, separable from the act of embryo annihilation. How can that be proven? If the embryos are created for the sole purpose of using their stem cells, which leads to their demise, then isn't that creating a life only to destroy it? Killing one person to save another person cannot be construed as an ethical act. But further, government-sanctioned destruction of human embryos isn't just morally wrong it violates existing law. Federal funds may not be used for research in which human embryos are destroyed. If legalized, this could set a dangerous precedent for how human life is valued in the years to come.

As pointed out by Rick Baker, "Today, we face another, but far more complicated moral crisis. The enormous power of medical technology, coupled with the legitimization of the market ethos in health care, threatens to overshadow both physician and patient." (108) Baker went on to say, "What place in that response should and will the moral guideposts of the Hippocratic Oath, and the AMA Code of Ethics play? Should the traditional medical ethos be replaced entirely by a new code, one modified to suit current economic and political realities?" (108) Should we, as a society, forget about the oath that made the treatment of mankind just and humane? We should uphold this Promise not to harm a patient and that applies to human embryos as well. Are they not human? It all depends on ones outlook of when human life begins. However, if one creates human life for the purpose of having a baby, is it not a life? Therefore, if someone were to create a life in order to harvest its stem cells and then kill it, any way one looks at it, it's still a human being. To create an existence only to destroy it, is erroneous and the moral equivalent of murder.

We, as a society, do need scientists and researchers. They bring knowledge and help to those in need. Yet, nothing is gained by destroying a life only to help another. There should be balance and all life is held sacred. When doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, the main objective is to do no harm. How is killing an embryo not doing harm? This is a very serious issue that should be thought of with the utmost care and compassion. I believe that the researchers and doctors are legitimately trying to find ways of helping others. Conceivably, they just don't feel the same way as I do about when life begins. I don't assume that this makes them horrific people. I do think that our society should weigh these decisions and decide what is moral and just for mankind.