Reflections of the Hippocratic Oath in Modern Medicine

Antoniou, Stavros A.; Antoniou, George Α.; Granderath, Frank A.; Mavroforou, Anna; Giannoukas, Athanasios D.; Antoniou, Athanasios I.

doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0604-3

Cited by 41 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is the Hippocratic Oath (fifth century BC) that reveals the oldest concern with ethical issues in medical practice 28 . The study of ethics was born within the philosophical traditions of ancient Greece in order to systematize the "good manners" of medical practice.…”

Section: Neuroscience and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroethics: the institutionalization of ethics in neuroscience

Hamdan

2017

Rev. Bioét.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in neuroscience have led to numerous ethical questions. Neuroethics is the study of ethical, legal and social advancements in neuroscience which, despite being a recently developed discipline, has a long historical tradition. The concern with ethical issues in neuroscience is extremely old and dates back to the philosophical and scientific traditions that originally sought to understand the relationship between the brain and behavior. More recently, the field of neuroethics has emerged in the context of public and academic debate over the consequences of the advances arising from neuroscience. In the current context, technological innovations, which have arisen from the expansion of neuroscience research, have raised new ethical dilemmas. This article aims to analyze the historical course of ethics within the field of neuroscience, specifically the appearance and the recent institutionalization of neuroethics.

show abstract

Section: Neuroscience and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroethics: the institutionalization of ethics in neuroscience

Hamdan

2017

Rev. Bioét.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though first administered some 2,500 years ago, modern versions of the Hippocratic Oath continue to be taken by many physicians and it largely governs the ideal teleology of the healthcare industry (Antoniou et al, 2010;Tyson, 2001). Today, one can summarize the oath in three principles: (1) beneficence, (2) nonmaleficence, and (3) confidentiality (Kirch, 2008).…”

Section: Healthcare As Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Role of Contextual Integrity in Electronic Medical Record (EMR) System Workaround Decisions: An Information Security and Privacy Perspective

Burns¹,

Young²,

Roberts³

et al. 2015

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Many healthcare providers in the US are seeking increased efficiency and effectiveness by rapidly adopting information technology (IT) solutions such as electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Legislation such as the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), which codified the adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic records in the US, has further spurred the industry-wide adoption of EMR. However, despite what are often large investments in EMR, studies indicate that the healthcare industry maintains a culture of system workarounds. Though perhaps not uncommon, the creation of informal workflows among healthcare workers is problematic for assuring information security and patient privacy, particularly when involving decisions of information management (e.g., information storage, retrieval, and/or transmission). Drawing on the framework of contextual integrity, we assert that one can often explain workarounds involving information transmissions in terms of trade-offs informed by context-specific informational norms. We surveyed healthcare workers and analyzed their willingness to engage in a series of EMR workaround scenarios. Our results indicate that contextual integrity provides a useful framework for understanding information transmission and workaround decisions in the health sector. Armed with these findings, managers and system designers should be better able to anticipate healthcare workers' information transmission principles (e.g., privacy norms) and workaround patterns (e.g., usage norms). We present our findings and discuss their significance for research and practice.

show abstract

“…Certainly, foundational Hippocratic ethical values apply-for example, primacy of the patient-doctor relationship, confidentiality, and acting in patients' best interest [28]. The last Hippocratic value is relevant to opioid treatment decisions since it requires physicians to deny inappropriate treatments requested by patients, no matter how much patients or their advocates want that treatment.…”

Section: Ethical Approaches To Opioid Treatment Of Noncancer Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clinical Ethics Approach to Opioid Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain

Cohen

Jangro

2015

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ballantyne JC, Fleisher LA. Ethical issues in opioid prescribing for chronic pain. Pain. 2010;148(3):365-367.We are writing both to respond to Ballantyne and Fleisher's 2010 article on the ethics of opioid prescribing [1] and to join the authors in calling for continued progress in rational, ethical, and practical decision making surrounding the use of opioids in the treatment of patients with noncancer chronic pain. Given the current state of knowledge regarding long-term opioid treatment, we suggest that dilemmas associated with this treatment are best approached using patient-centered clinical ethics. We believe principle-based, deontological, and classical Hippocratic ethical approaches have less relevance in sorting out current controversies surrounding opioid treatment.We agree with the authors' concise history of how opioid use in medicine has most often been determined by fearful attitudes and politics [1] and rarely arrived at rationally [2], let alone through application of ethical models or evidence-based practice [3]. We welcome exactly this sort of thoughtful reflection on the ethical implications of opioid prescription for chronic painful illness. Ballantyne and Fleisher accurately reflect expert consensus that the most difficult clinical dilemmas involving opioid analgesics arise in treating chronic nonmalignant pain, not acute postinjury or perioperative pain [4,5] or even terminal painful illness [6][7][8]. Even though there is widespread consensus about the majority of uses for opioids for chronic malignant pain, approximately 50 percent of cancer patients still face barriers to pain care [9]. If this is the status of pain care in cancer, an area about which there is reasonable ethical consensus, it is not surprising that noncancer chronic pain is even less adequately addressed. This discrepancy highlights the need to work toward greater agreement on solutions to the ethical questions involved in delivery of care to patients with this kind of pain [10,11].Ballantyne and Fleisher trace the most recent wave of arbitrary limitations on opioid prescribing to the early twentieth century, when physician influence on treatments offered to patients began a steady decline. This decreasing influence has been ascribed to a combination of factors, including increased regulation of the manufacture, trade, and prescription of opioids; stigmatization of opioids through special prescribing requirements and criminalization of addiction [1]; expanded tracking and limitation of physician practice through "managed" care; attention to control of medical "utilization";

show abstract

Reflections of the Hippocratic Oath in Modern Medicine

Cited by 41 publications

References 11 publications

Neuroethics: the institutionalization of ethics in neuroscience

Neuroethics: the institutionalization of ethics in neuroscience

Exploring the Role of Contextual Integrity in Electronic Medical Record (EMR) System Workaround Decisions: An Information Security and Privacy Perspective

A Clinical Ethics Approach to Opioid Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About