Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 185–194 | Cite as

The “Soul of Professionalism” in the Hippocratic Oath and today

Scientific Contribution

Abstract

This article views the Hippocratic Oath from a new perspective and draws consequences for modern health care. The Oath consists of two parts, a family-like alliance where the teacher of the “art” is equal to a father and a set of maxims how the “art” is to be practiced. Self-commitments stated before the gods tie the parts together and give the alliance trustworthiness. One might call this a proto-profession. Modern physicians form a similar alliance. Specific knowledge and skills and specific action guiding rules are elements of a profession but its trustworthiness rests on a combination of professional autonomy and public control. In order to be granted autonomy the profession must show some effort in enforcing its specific rules and in order to do so its members need to be convinced of the intrinsic value of their profession (the “soul of professionalism” according to Freidson). Whereas in antiquity physicians acted as single individuals the modern alliance is shaped by division of labour. Physicians use each other and other professions by mutual consent and the health care system as means in the diagnostic-therapeutic process. As any actor is reponsible for the means he uses physicians are co-responsible accordingly. Thus, professional conduct now entails care for the organisation of the alliance as detailed in the “Charter on Medical Professionalism”. The effort the profession gives to this task will confirm its trustworthiness.

Keywords

Hippocratic Oath History Trustworthiness Profession Professional ethics Charter on medical professionalism 

References

  1. Bleicken, J. 1995. Die athenische Demokratie. 4th ed. Schöningh, Paderborn. p. 284ff.Google Scholar
  2. Diller, H. (Ed.). 1994. Hippokrates. Schriften. Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart. p. 8 ff.Google Scholar
  3. Edelstein, L. 1969. Der hippokratische Eid. Trans. from the English by Klaus Bartels. Artemis Verlag, Zurich and Stuttgart. p.7 f.Google Scholar
  4. Faller, H., and H. Lang. 2010. Medizinische Psychologie und Soziologie, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer. 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freidson, E. 2001. Professionalism, the Third Logic. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kettner, M., and F. Heubel. 2012. Lob der Profession. Ethik in der Medizin 24(137–146): 145.Google Scholar
  7. Kudlien, F. 1990. Der ärztliche Beruf in Staat und Gesellschaft der Antike. In Jahrbuch des Instituts für Geschichte der Medizin der Robert Bosch Stiftung, vol. 7, ed. W.F. Kümmel. Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Leven, K.-H. 2005. Hippokratischer Eid. In Enzyklopädie Medizingeschichte, ed. W. Gerabek, B. Hage, G. Keil, and W. Wegner, 598f. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Lichtenthaeler, C. 2005. Text des Hippokratischen Eides. In Enzyklopädie Medizingeschichte, ed. W. Gerabek, B. Hage, G. Keil, and W. Wegner, 599f. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Medical Professionalism Project. 2002. Lancet 359: 520–522. Also: Medical professionalism in the new millennium. A physician charter. Annals internal medicine [Online]. http://annals.org/content/136/3/243.full. Accessed 9 Jan 2012. Trans F.H.
  11. Plato. 1991. Die Großen Dialoge. Trans Rudolf Rufener. Munich: Artemis & Winkler p. 57.Google Scholar
  12. Siegrist, J. 2005. Medizinische soziologie, 6th ed. Munich: Elsevier GmbH. 226.Google Scholar
  13. Walton, M., and I. Kerridge. 2014. Do no harm: is it time to rethink the Hippocratic Oath? Medical Education 48: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wissowa, G. (Ed.). 1958. Paulys Realencyclopädie des klassischen Altertums. Achter Halbband, 2467–2470. Suttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Xenophon. 1955. Apologia Socratous, ed. by E.C. Marchant, Vol. II, 2nd ed. Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Ziegler, K. (Ed.).1958. Paulys Realencyclopädie des klassischen Altertums. 36. Halbband, zweites Drittel, 457–493. Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Akademie für Ethik in der MedizinMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations