transabled.org

 

• About
• Login
• Contact
• Accessibility

Google Search:
Web transabled.org Go

 

Blog > Thoughts > Sean's Thoughts > Hypocratic oath: Do no harm

Hypocratic oath: Do no harm

Written by Sean on Monday, May 30, 2005

In a conversation with someone who says they are both transabled and a medical doctor, they told me they would not consider "hurting" anyone other than themselves, because of the hypocratic oath. The "first do no harm" bit. I most definitely understand that stance. But I’m not entirely convinced that doing no harm equates not helping a transabled in distress to acquire an amputation or paraplegia.

Here’s something to think about. I would argue that to assist some transabled people to become paraplegics would actually not be harm, but healing. Where does one draw the line? Is physical well-being better, by definition, than emotional well-being? My over-all quality of life would be much improved by having a body that doesn’t quite work the way it was designed to, but with peace of mind that comes from being a paraplegic. I can tell you now, the transabled feelings are really tough on me, and it would be a great healing man who could help me set those aside.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that"do no harm" can be looked at in a different light. If one found an osteosarcoma in someone’s leg, you would have to cut the leg off. Having one’s leg cut off is generally not viewed as something inherently good. But which is more harmful, the cancer, or the lack of leg? By doing nothing and leaving the leg there, are you not doing harm? For me, the transabled feelings are like a cancer. They are invading my life, every aspect of it, my emotions, and are endangering my emotional well-being. If you are able to excise that cancer, at the cost of the use of my legs, is it not doing more harm to do nothing?

Of course, this kind of rethorical debate is usualy pointless, and I suspect that one would be hard pressed to actually convince the medical community that this argument is valid. You may not agree with the reasoning, but it is a logical conclusion nonetheless. How about it?

Twitter Updates

Follow me on Twitter