Primum non nocere? Why do I keep hearing this?

[No Imagination]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ok, I am not sure why, maybe it’s a secret initiative of the AVMA or some other nefarious group, but why do I keep hearing “Do No Harm”?!? I’ve even had 2 professors tell me it is in the veterinary oath. I was always under the impression that the lack of the phrase “Do no harm” is what allows us to practice as veterinarians, and was one of the core differences between the DVM and MD oath.

We do harm all the time – be it convenience euthanasia, culling (be it from disease or monetary requirements). The list can go on and on… Or course we are obligated to “LIMIT” or “REDUCE” harm, but “DO NO”?

So, am I missing something? Perhaps I don’t understand the definition of “Harm”? Perhaps there is a new(er) veterinary oath that includes the line “Do No Harm”?

Anyone else been getting this?

 

[Bill59]

Yeah, I think a lot of people like to throw around the phrase in an attempt to sound profound ... when they really don't understanding anything about it.

Not only is the phrase not in the veterinary oath, it's not in the Hippocratic oath, and it's very doubful that Hippocrates ever wrote it. (The fact that it's Latin not Greek should have been a clue).

And taken as a rigid rule, it's a deficient guide to patient managment. All treatments carry some risk. Anybody can avoid harming a patient -- just don't do anything. The challenge of medicine is to balance the harms against the beneficial effects of the treatment.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

Wikipedia does credit the origin of the phrase to the Hippocratic oath, where it is similar in meaning but not but the specific quote (since it's in Greek), but I don't know if that's accurate or not.

As far as the meaning of "harm" goes, I do think that it's the definition that's confusing, and I'm sure we won't all come to an agreement. Is causing death also causing harm? I don't think it's necessarily so; in some cases, a good death is actually creating a benefit to a person or animal in pain and distress.

Nevertheless, it's not part of the Veterinarian's Oath. As to whether it's an admirable ethical goal is a different question too......I think it's a good goal, but not something we can guarantee.

 

[Bill59]

Wikipedia does credit the origin of the phrase to the Hippocratic oath, where it is similar in meaning but not but the specific quote (since it's in Greek), but I don't know if that's accurate or not.

It's not. The English physician, Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689) is most likely the author.

Origin and uses of primum non nocere--above all, do no harm!

 

[HopefulAg]

I think it's an issue of the greater good. By not euthanizing, in a lot of cases, you're actively doing harm. By not culling part of the herd, or that animal, you'd be doing harm to future generations, to the animal itself, or the rest of the herd.

I guess it depends on how one defines 'harm'. Stick strictly to the definition? If so then you can't even do surgeries because nociception is still sent.

 

[No Imagination]

I understand what your saying Calliope, but I was taught that there are specific differences between MD and DVM's, and it is not an accidental omission that "Do no harm" is nowhere to be found in any veterinary oath.

It just shocks me to hear so many (at least half a dozen) professors saying "Remember your Oath; 'above all, do no harm'" - it takes all my willpower to not raise my hand and say "What oath are you talking about exactly?" - But that would do (me) more harm then good... So instead I vent here 🙂

 

[hizarlow]

No imagination I think you should question it next time you hear it. I would like to know their response.

 

[No Imagination]

No imagination I think you should question it next time you hear it. I would like to know their response.

ROFL, Don't have the balls; too many people don't like me as it is (as I am sure you know!)