MEDICAL BIAS: Research The Hippocratic Oath: Where did it start? How is it applied? What are the controversies/problems with said oath?

Introduction

The Hippocratic Oath, a foundational pledge in medical ethics, has long symbolised the commitment of physicians to ethical practice. Originating in ancient Greece around the 5th century BCE, it is traditionally attributed to Hippocrates, often regarded as the father of Western medicine (Edelstein, 1943). This oath emphasises principles such as doing no harm, maintaining confidentiality, and exercising good judgment in patient care. In contemporary healthcare, it is frequently recited by medical graduates worldwide, serving as a moral compass. However, controversies arise when personal biases undermine these ideals, leading to disparities in treatment, particularly for marginalised groups. This essay explores the origins and application of the Hippocratic Oath, examines its problems in the context of medical bias, and proposes solutions like implicit bias training. By synthesising historical context with modern evidence, it argues that while the oath promotes ethical standards, its non-binding nature allows subconscious prejudices to persist, necessitating reforms to ensure equitable care. Drawing on peer-reviewed studies, the discussion highlights biases affecting racial minorities, women, and obese patients, ultimately calling for enhanced training and research.

Origins and Historical Context of the Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath traces its roots to ancient Greece, emerging in the late 5th century BCE as part of the Hippocratic Corpus, a collection of medical texts attributed to Hippocrates of Kos (Miles, 2004). Hippocrates, born around 460 BCE, is credited with transforming medicine from a superstitious practice into a rational discipline based on observation and ethics. However, scholarly debate exists regarding authorship; some suggest it was composed by a group of physicians in the Hippocratic school rather than Hippocrates himself (Edelstein, 1943). The original oath, written in Ionic Greek, includes commitments to benefit patients, avoid harm, preserve life, and maintain professional secrecy. It also prohibits practices like euthanasia, abortion, and surgery, reflecting the cultural and religious norms of the time, such as reverence for the gods Apollo and Asclepius.

Historically, the oath was not universally adopted until the medieval period, when it was Christianised and integrated into European medical education. By the 19th century, it gained prominence in Western medicine, influencing codes like the Declaration of Geneva in 1948 (World Medical Association, 2017). Today, versions of the oath vary; for instance, the modern adaptation by Louis Lasagna in 1964 emphasises humanism and social responsibility (Lasagna, 1964). This evolution underscores the oath’s adaptability, yet it also highlights a key limitation: its ancient origins may not fully address contemporary ethical challenges, such as those posed by advanced technologies or diverse patient populations.

Application of the Hippocratic Oath in Modern Medicine

In current practice, the Hippocratic Oath is applied symbolically rather than legally, often recited at medical school graduations to instil ethical values. It underpins professional guidelines, such as those from the General Medical Council in the UK, which require doctors to prioritise patient welfare and avoid discrimination (General Medical Council, 2020). The core tenet of “first, do no harm” (primum non nocere) guides clinical decisions, encouraging evidence-based treatments and informed consent. For example, in the National Health Service (NHS), adherence to oath-like principles ensures confidentiality and equitable care, as outlined in the NHS Constitution (Department of Health and Social Care, 2021).

However, application varies globally. In the US, about 98% of medical schools administer some form of the oath, but content differs, with only 14% retaining the original prohibition on abortion (Orr et al., 1997). This flexibility allows adaptation to cultural contexts, yet it raises questions about consistency. Indeed, the oath’s influence extends beyond ceremonies; studies show it shapes physicians’ attitudes towards end-of-life care and resource allocation (Antiel et al., 2013). Nevertheless, its non-binding status means enforcement relies on professional bodies, not law, which can limit its impact in preventing ethical lapses.

Controversies and Problems with the Hippocratic Oath in Relation to Medical Bias

Despite its noble intentions, the Hippocratic Oath faces significant controversies, particularly regarding its inability to mitigate implicit biases in healthcare. One major problem is its outdated language and focus, which do not explicitly address modern issues like systemic racism or gender disparities. For instance, implicit racial bias among clinicians contributes to higher maternal mortality rates among Black women, with studies showing they are 2.6 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women (Petersen et al., 2019). This contradicts the oath’s harm-avoidance principle, as biases lead to dismissed symptoms and inadequate care.

Gender bias similarly undermines the oath, with women’s pain often minimised or attributed to psychological factors. Research indicates that women experience longer diagnostic delays for conditions like endometriosis, exacerbating health outcomes (Chapman et al., 2019). Furthermore, weight-based bias affects obese patients, where assumptions link all ailments to weight, resulting in under-treatment and avoidance of care (Phelan et al., 2015). A peer-reviewed study highlights that such biases are acquired through medical training’s “hidden curriculum,” perpetuating stereotypes (Sukhera et al., 2018).

These issues reveal the oath’s limitations: it is aspirational but not enforceable, allowing subconscious prejudices to flourish. Critiques argue that the myth of the oath as a universal ethical standard overlooks its historical context, where it was exclusive to certain societal groups (Hulkower, 2016). Moreover, in diverse societies, the oath’s Eurocentric origins may not resonate with non-Western practitioners, potentially alienating minority doctors and patients (Fitzhugh Mullan Institute, 2022). Evidence from systematic reviews shows that implicit bias training can reduce these disparities, yet its absence in many curricula highlights a systemic failure (FitzGerald and Hurst, 2017).

Proposed Solutions and Reforms

Addressing these controversies requires integrating solutions into medical education and practice. Mandatory implicit bias training, as implemented in some US states, has shown promise in improving care equity and reducing lawsuits (Devine et al., 2012). For example, programs using tools like the Implicit Association Test help clinicians recognise biases, aligning more closely with the oath’s ethical spirit (Greenwald et al., 1998). Additionally, diversifying the medical workforce—ensuring more minority doctors—enhances patient trust and outcomes, as patients benefit from culturally concordant care (Saha et al., 1999).

Further research is essential to measure bias effectively and refine interventions. Official reports from organisations like the World Health Organization advocate for policy changes to promote health equity (World Health Organization, 2020). By embedding anti-bias education into curricula, the oath can evolve from a ceremonial relic to a practical framework for inclusive medicine.

Conclusion

In summary, the Hippocratic Oath originated in ancient Greece as a pledge for ethical medical practice and continues to be applied symbolically in modern healthcare to guide professional conduct. However, controversies stem from its non-binding nature and failure to address implicit biases, leading to disparities in care for marginalised groups such as racial minorities, women, and obese individuals. These problems highlight the need for reforms, including mandatory training and workforce diversification, to uphold the oath’s core principles. Ultimately, a call to action is imperative: medical institutions must prioritise bias education and allocate funding for ongoing research. By doing so, we can mitigate the harms of prejudice, ensuring the oath truly “does no harm” and fosters equitable healthcare for all. This not only honours Hippocrates’ legacy but also adapts it to contemporary societal needs, preventing future failures in patient care.

References

• Antiel, R.M., Curlin, F.A., Hook, C.C. and Tilburt, J.C. (2013) The impact of medical school oaths and other professional codes of ethics: Satisfaction with the process of medical education among American medical students. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(9), pp.951-959.
• Chapman, K.B., van Zijl, M., Sood, G., van Waesberghe, J.H.T.M. and Maas, M. (2019) Gender bias in the diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 122(6), pp.e186-e187.
• Department of Health and Social Care (2021) The NHS Constitution for England. London: UK Government.
• Devine, P.G., Forscher, P.S., Austin, A.J. and Cox, W.T.L. (2012) Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), pp.1267-1278.
• Edelstein, L. (1943) The Hippocratic Oath: Text, translation and interpretation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
• FitzGerald, C. and Hurst, S. (2017) Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), p.19.
• Fitzhugh Mullan Institute (2022) Addressing implicit bias in health care. George Washington University.
• General Medical Council (2020) Good medical practice. Manchester: GMC.
• Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E. and Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), pp.1464-1480.
• Hulkower, R. (2016) The history of the Hippocratic Oath: Outdated, inauthentic, and yet still relevant. Einstein Journal of Biology and Medicine, 25(1), pp.41-44.
• Lasagna, L. (1964) Hippocratic Oath—Modern version. Tufts University.
• Miles, S.H. (2004) The Hippocratic Oath and the ethics of medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Orr, R.D., Pang, N., Pellegrino, E.D. and Siegler, M. (1997) Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A review of twentieth century practice and a content analysis of oaths administered in medical schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 8(4), pp.377-388.
• Petersen, E.E., Davis, N.L., Goodman, D., Cox, S., Mayes, N., Johnston, E., Syverson, C., Seed, K., Shapiro-Mendoza, C.K., Callaghan, W.M. and Barfield, W. (2019) Vital signs: Pregnancy-related deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and strategies for prevention, 13 states, 2013–2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(18), pp.423-429.
• Phelan, S.M., Burgess, D.J., Yeazel, M.W., Hellerstedt, W.L., Griffin, J.M. and van Ryn, M. (2015) Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity. Obesity Reviews, 16(4), pp.319-326.
• Saha, S., Komaromy, M., Koepsell, T.D. and Bindman, A.B. (1999) Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159(9), pp.997-1004.
• Sukhera, J., Milne, A., Teunissen, P.W., Lingard, L. and Watling, C. (2018) The actual versus idealized self: Exploring responses to feedback about implicit bias in health professionals. Academic Medicine, 93(4), pp.623-629.
• World Health Organization (2020) State of the world’s nursing 2020: Investing in education, jobs and leadership. Geneva: WHO.
• World Medical Association (2017) WMA Declaration of Geneva. Ferney-Voltaire: WMA.