Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 33–43 | Cite as

Hippocratic, religious, and secular ethics: The points of conflict

  • Robert M. Veatch


The origins of professional ethical codes and oaths are explored. Their legitimacy and usefulness within the profession are questioned and an alternative ethical source is suggested. This source relies on a commonly shared, naturally knowable set of principles known as common morality.


Oath Hippocratic Oath Professional codes Common morality Convergence thesis 


  1. 1.
    Roth, Russell B. 1971. Medicine’s ethical responsibilities. Journal of the American Medical Association 215: 1956–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brock, Lord Russell. 1970. Euthanasia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 63: 661–663.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carey, E.J. 1928. The formal use of the Hippocratic Oath for medical students at commencement exercises. Bulletin of the Association of American Medical Colleges 3: 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Irish, D.P., and D.W. McMurray. 1965. Professional oaths in American medical colleges. Journal of Chronic Diseases 18: 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedlander, W. 1982. Oath given by US and Canadian medical schools, 1977. Social Science and Medicine 66: 115–120.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orr, Robert D., Norman Pang, Edmund Pellegrino, and Mark Siegler. 1997. Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A review of twentieth century practice and a content analysis of oath administered in medical schools in the US and Canada in 1993. Journal of Clinical Ethics 8: 377–388.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veatch, Robert M., and Cheryl C. Macpherson. 2010. Medical school oath-taking: The moral controversy. Journal of Clinical Ethics 21(4): 335–345.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barth, Karl. 1938. The knowledge of god and the service of God according to the teaching of the reformation, recalling the Scottish confession of 1560. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harrell, David Edwin. 1985. Oral Roberts: An American life. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roberts, Oral. 1995. Expect a miracle: My life and ministry. An autobiography. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aquinas, Thomas. 1915. Summa theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: R & T Washbourne, Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vandrunen, David. 2004. The context of natural law: John Calvin’s doctrine of the two kingdoms. Journal of Church and State 46(3): 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    United Methodist Church. 2004. The book of discipline of the United Methodist Church. Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris, John. 1985. The value of life: An introduction to medical ethics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor, James Stacey. 2005. Stakes and kidneys: Why markets in human body parts are morally imperative? Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Engelhardt, H.Tristram. 1996. The foundations of bioethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gillon, Raanan, ed. 1994. Principles of health care ethics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brody, Baruch. 1988. Life and death decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ross, W.D. 1930. The right and the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veatch, Robert M. 1981. A theory of medical ethics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gert, Bernard, Charles M. Culver, and K. Danner Clouser. 2006. Bioethics: A systematic approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Neill, Onora. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Outka, Gene, and John P. Reeder, eds. 1992. Prospects for a common morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gert, Bernard. 2004. Common morality: Deciding what to do. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beauchamp, Tom L. 2003. A defense of the common morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13: 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brand-Ballard, Jeffrey. 2003. Consistency, common morality, and reflective equilibrium. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13: 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    DeGrazia, David. 2003. Common morality, coherence, and the principles of biomedical ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veatch, Robert M. 2003. Is there a common morality? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13: 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veatch, Robert M. 2004. Common morality and human finitude: A foundation for bioethics. In Weltanschaulilche offenheit in der bioethik, ed. Eva Baumann, Alexander Bink, A. May, Peter Schroder, and C. I. Schutzeiechel, 37–50. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Engelhardt, H.Tristram. 1991. Bioethics and secular humanism: The search for a common morality. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Macklin, Ruth. 1976. Moral concerns and appeals to rights and duties. Hastings Center Report 6(5): 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Annas, George J. 2005. American bioethics: Crossing human rights and health law boundaries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    UNESCO General Conference. 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Accessed July 16, 2007.
  36. 36.
    Macklin, Ruth. 2003. Dignity is a useless concept. British Medical Journal 327(7429): 1419–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Kennedy Institute of EthicsGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations