If a doctor performs an abortion, is he or she violating the Hippocratic oath?

Oh, there's all sorts of things about the Hippocratic Oath which aren't taken literally any more. For one thing, any modern doctor who swears by "Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea" probably doesn't believe in those gods.

On a more serious note, though, abortions were not considered bad at that time because of concern for the fetus, but because of concern for the woman. Until doctors started understanding germ theory, and using it*, getting an abortion was quite risky for a woman. Surgical abortion is EXTREMELY easy to do. The hard part is doing it safely. Basically, a surgical abortion in Hippocrates' time consisted of dilating the cervix and scraping out the products of conception. This is a dandy way to introduce all sorts of noxious substances into the uterus, and women frequently contracted infections. Sometimes they died of these infections, sometimes they lived. If they lived, they might very well become barren.

Medical abortions, that is, abortions brought on by various drugs, were done by carefully poisoning the woman. The dose of poison had to be juuuuust right, enough to kill the fetus (and possibly stimulate contractions), but not enough to kill the woman. Many old fashioned remedies and patent medicines that were promoted for "women's troubles" were actually abortificiants, and everyone understood what they were, even though they weren't specific about what "trouble" a woman might be suffering from. Also, any medicine that was said to "induce the (menstrual) courses" was either meant to stimulate contractions (to expel the fetus) or to poison the fetus, or both. Again, it was a code word.

*Semmelweiss found it practically impossible to convince older doctors that they really, REALLY should wash their hands after examining a corpse, and especially before performing a pelvic exam on a woman in labor. Most women refused to go to a hospital to give birth, because "childbed fever" (puerperal fever) was so high among women who were attended by doctors, who didn't wash their hands. In contrast, midwives DID usually wash their hands between patients, and had a much better rate of women living through their care.

Depending on wether or not you consider the fetus a human being. That is what the core of the abortion debate is about. Other things that violate the hippocratic oath are living wills, and ending a coma victims life to get organs.

particular and no. Technically and actually speaking, particular--an abortion could be violating the unique Hippocratic Oath. opposite to common perception, nevertheless, medical doctors are actually not required to take the "Hippocratic Oath" (extraordinarily, because of the fact it incredibly is previous with reference to criminal adjustments and scientific advances). although, medical doctors do take training in scientific ethics and learn the concepts of the "Hippocratic Oath" appreciably. So the Hippocratic Oath might desire to not be used to legally get abortion outlawed.

Doctors violate the hippocratic oath when they refuse to treat patients who don't have insurance, when they refuse to refer their patients to chiroprators even then they know doing so might be the only hope their patient has of improving his quality of life and when they prescribe drugs to cover symptoms rather than find and treat the cause of illness and treat that. Doctors violate the oath all the time in a multitude of ways. When a doctor performs an abortion. however. she is treating her one and only patient, the woman seeking the abortion. Moreover, doctors do not have to perform abortions if they object to doing so.

I do not think so. What they would be violating is their conscience. And that is a matter between the doctor, the woman and God. He is the only one who can read the heart. The rest of us can not do anything about. Free will is free will. You can only punish those who go against the law. The question is Is abortion against the law? If it is against God's law (and I believe it is) then God will take care of it in its due time.

A Doctors Wisdom..............

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together. So the doctor said: ‘Ok and what do you want me to do?’ She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’ The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’ She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child! ’I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution. The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!

It depends on what you consider "harm" to be. If you think it's ok for a physician to let a fetus come to term that will result in the death of the mother, then we might as well throw all oaths out, really.

Of course not. In fact, the patient is the mother, not the fetus. To force the mother to give birth to a child she is not financially, emotionally or physically able of raising harms the mother.

Of course it would violate the Hippocratic oath. Do no harm to anyone....

But it's not like the oath is legally binding.

Terminating an organism sounds pretty harmful.

Dzhastin: Strawman. FAIL.