Hippocratic Oath Redux

Misconceptions about the Hippocratic Oath seem to be cropping up again. It seems that whenever somebody wants to criticize the actions of a doctor, they like to bring up the Hippocratic Oath (eg. How could that doctor take part in capital punishment? Doesn't he know its against the Hippocratic Oath?)

The oath is an outdated anachronism. It has some interesting sentimental historical value, but I would hope that most doctors would not follow the actual oath, but rather some version modified to their own beliefs.

Some passages of note:

I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work.

So, no surgery, which of course was the competing school of "medicine" in those times.

him who taught me this Art... to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation;

So, medical school should be free for the kids of doctors, but all the other poor shmoes need to pay.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked

A nice blanket statement against euthanasia. Obviously some people may agree with that sentiment, but I think that as a society we are beginning to recognize that people have the right to a peaceful death if they so desire it.

Using sections of the hippocratic oath to prove a point while neglecting the rest is like taking random sections of the bible to prove that gay people need to be burned at the stake. Some people do it, but the rest of the rational population should reject that line of reasoning without a second thought. Doctors are bound by modern moral principles, not guidelines created thousands of years ago.