Talk:Hippocratic Oath

message: ==== Source of quoted oath ====
I have removed:
:(PBS/Johns Hopkins; but please also note that the Johns Hopkins source words the ancient Oath differently from the above, which is apocryphal/unsourced) 
as part of a revision. The writer makes a very important point that the Oath quoted is unreferenced as to the source. Does anyone have a source or should we replace this version with one for which there is a credible source? --CloudSurfer 22:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004

message: I have removed:
:(PBS/Johns Hopkins; but please also note that the Johns Hopkins source words the ancient Oath differently from the above, which is apocryphal/unsourced) 
as part of a revision. The writer makes a very important point that the Oath quoted is unreferenced as to the source. Does anyone have a source or should we replace this version with one for which there is a credible source? --CloudSurfer 22:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of quoted oath 

message: ==== Changing sentence ====
I'm changing "Most scholars believe that the oath was written by Hippocrates..." to "It's widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates...?" It's seems clear from reading other articles that it's not the case that 'most scholars' believe he wrote the oath.  
Dictionary.com states: "He is traditionally but inaccurately considered the author of the Hippocratic oath."
the Wikipedia Hippocrates article states: "The best known of the Hippocratic writings is the Hippocratic Oath; however, this text was most likely not written by Hippocrates himself." --Ledavee 11:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006

message: I'm changing "Most scholars believe that the oath was written by Hippocrates..." to "It's widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates...?" It's seems clear from reading other articles that it's not the case that 'most scholars' believe he wrote the oath.  
Dictionary.com states: "He is traditionally but inaccurately considered the author of the Hippocratic oath."
the Wikipedia Hippocrates article states: "The best known of the Hippocratic writings is the Hippocratic Oath; however, this text was most likely not written by Hippocrates himself." --Ledavee 11:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing sentence 

message: ==== Original source in Latin/Greek ====
It would be desirable to include (or reference) the original text of the oath (in greek/latin). Anybody knows?
Regards.
:Added the Greek version. Took it from Greek Wikipedia and divided it into paragraphs to match the English, for ease of comparison. Not sure what value the Latin would add. kwami 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuous evolution in the scriptoria doesn't rule out survival of faithful versions. In any case, it's branching evolution, so it's a lot like inferring the nature of the common ancestors of modern animals beyond what the fossil record shows, as in the prediction of the characteristics of the coelecanths. An classic textual example is the inference of a lost Q document underlying two of the canonical Gospels.  --Jerzy•t 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The Greek version is an addition of so little value in an English encyclopedia that it is merely unencyclopedic clutter here, tho high-class clutter.   Evidently it is in  classical rather than modern Greek, but it should be discarded and an ext lk to a reliable source added to the accompanying article -- if one can be determined. --Jerzy•t 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There is an original classical Greek text, I have it in a book with a modern Greek translation. It also a volume of the Loeb classical library with english translation Blex areton (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

text: *Mathiastck, I added a photograph of Dr. Lasagna from his biography page, and expanded the link to his version. I also expanded the two references that were there to a site in the UK. I am not a student of medicine but at least the source for what this article says can be read. -Susanlesch 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I like the addition. -- Rmrfstar 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007

message: It would be desirable to include (or reference) the original text of the oath (in greek/latin). Anybody knows?
Regards.
:Added the Greek version. Took it from Greek Wikipedia and divided it into paragraphs to match the English, for ease of comparison. Not sure what value the Latin would add. kwami 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuous evolution in the scriptoria doesn't rule out survival of faithful versions. In any case, it's branching evolution, so it's a lot like inferring the nature of the common ancestors of modern animals beyond what the fossil record shows, as in the prediction of the characteristics of the coelecanths. An classic textual example is the inference of a lost Q document underlying two of the canonical Gospels.  --Jerzy•t 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The Greek version is an addition of so little value in an English encyclopedia that it is merely unencyclopedic clutter here, tho high-class clutter.   Evidently it is in  classical rather than modern Greek, but it should be discarded and an ext lk to a reliable source added to the accompanying article -- if one can be determined. --Jerzy•t 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There is an original classical Greek text, I have it in a book with a modern Greek translation. It also a volume of the Loeb classical library with english translation Blex areton (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original source in Latin/Greek 

message: I am not sure exactly what the hyppocratic oath section should be, but im sure its not really supposed to read:
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my "farts."
-tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.169.188 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong words 

message: Here's the somewhat more archaic translation in the 15th ed. of the EB:
I will look upon him who shall have taught me this Art even as one of my parents. I will share my substance with him, and I will supply his necessities, if he be in need. I will regard his offspring even as my own brethren, and I will teach them this Art, if they would learn it, without fee or covenant. I will impart this Art by precept, by lecture and by every mode of teaching, not only to my own sons but to the sons of him who has taught me, and to disciples bound by covenant and oath, according to the Law of Medicine.
The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgment, and not for their hurt or for any wrong. I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion. Whatsoever house I enter, there will I go for the benefit of the sick, refraining from all wrongdoing or corruption, and especially from any act of seduction, or male or female, of bond or free. Whatsoever things I see or hear concerning the life of men, in my attendance on the sick or even apart therefrom, which ought not to be noised abroad, I will keep silence thereon, counting such things to be as sacred secrets.
kwami 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EB version 

message: This page should more prominently lead readers to modern versions.  Mathiastck 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Mathiastck, I added a photograph of Dr. Lasagna from his biography page, and expanded the link to his version. I also expanded the two references that were there to a site in the UK. I am not a student of medicine but at least the source for what this article says can be read. -Susanlesch 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I like the addition. -- Rmrfstar 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Versions 

message: ==== Translation of the original oath ====
The Original oath is sourced to a 19th-century book where it is written in Greek. That means that the translation is either (a) the original editor's own, and therefore original research, or (b) taken from some other source, not specified, which might or might not be copyright. I suggest replacing it with this translation from The London Medical Repository of 1 March 1825. --Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done it.  Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 2014

message: The Original oath is sourced to a 19th-century book where it is written in Greek. That means that the translation is either (a) the original editor's own, and therefore original research, or (b) taken from some other source, not specified, which might or might not be copyright. I suggest replacing it with this translation from The London Medical Repository of 1 March 1825. --Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done it.  Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of the original oath 

message: ==== "Original" oath ====
If the oldest surviving version of the oath is from 43 BCE, claiming it to be the original when we know this not to be the case is incorrect.  Rather than declare an edit war, I'd like suggestions on what to rename that section.--~TPW 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's been a year and a half with no reply, I've decided to be bold and try something out. I'm going to leave a notice on your talk page, but I leave it open to all to develop consensus on a better title if mine is inadequate. I do, however, agree that it is highly misleading that the earliest manuscript be cited as the "original oath." Kakurokuna (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2015

message: If the oldest surviving version of the oath is from 43 BCE, claiming it to be the original when we know this not to be the case is incorrect.  Rather than declare an edit war, I'd like suggestions on what to rename that section.--~TPW 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's been a year and a half with no reply, I've decided to be bold and try something out. I'm going to leave a notice on your talk page, but I leave it open to all to develop consensus on a better title if mine is inadequate. I do, however, agree that it is highly misleading that the earliest manuscript be cited as the "original oath." Kakurokuna (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original" oath 

message: There are many sources and the Oath as quoted is a very poor rendering.
See:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/266652/Hippocratic-oath
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/hippooath.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5FHZx0oOqs
https://www.einstein.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/EJBM/page41_page44.pdf
http://www.hellenism.net/cgi-bin/forums/Blah.pl?m-1345682787/
The current Wiki 'version' doesn't even include the Greek God of Medicine (I don't have time to make the necessary amendments just now but I hope someone else will -- and include sources (feel free to use the above!) Parzivalamfortas 23:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: translation

message: According to this source, which is PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html , the modern version of the Oath written by Dr. Louis Lasagna in 1964 is incorrectly quoted by the Wikipedia article as it currently stands.  The version PBS gives is: 
 Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
The Wikipedia article as it currently stands omits the part I have bolded.
I am adding the section back in, and posting a reference to my source. 
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern version by Dr. Lasagna (1964)  

message: The article seems misleading in implying that only sections of the hippocratic oath have been dropped in some places. 
As far as I know it isn't actually used (or sworn) by doctors in most of the first world. Certainly it isn't in the UK. 
Does any country actually still use it?
--BozMo|talk 11:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: I removed the following sentence: "Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues associated with HMOs, living wills, and whether morning-after pills are technically closer to prophylactics or an abortion."
The final statement about emergency contraception seems biased to me.  I could not think of a good ethical example to replace it with, so I removed the whole sentence, which did not add much to the article, imho.  I believe this statement is biased since the medical profession generally understands that the 'morning after pill' is chemically identical to birth control pills.  Whether EC/oral contraceptives are an abortion is a matter of debate in the general public and religious sphere, and not generally a debate of the medical profession.  Thus, reference to this debate does not belong in an article about the Hippocratic Oath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.15.96 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: It would be helpful if the “modern relevance” section used quotes from the same version used in the “the classical oath” section. -Ahruman (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal consistency 

message: As for what is meant or if there is any reliable source of the oath, this article could certainly use a section that uses "the knife" in understanding what is meant by any of the text.  Is the use of "the knife," refer literally to using knives, or is there any critical interpretation such as "avoidance of unnecessary invasive surgery," or other?  It's hard to believe that anybody would blanketly condemn systematic diagnosis.Ep9206 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual Criticisms 

message: The bit "3. Never to do ... Consent" seems very, very biased. Why does it claim areas like Oregon or countries like The Netherlands allow doctors "murder" patients without the consent of patients?! This is not just biased, in fact, it is plain wrong. The reference given is a one-sided list of articles and op-eds on Dutch 'killing'. I'd like to refer readers to the Dutch Wikipedia which goes over the law regulating euthanasia in The Netherlands, but it boils down to this: in order for euthanasia to take place there must, in direct contradiction to what this article claims, be clear and prior consent by the patient. 
The 'source' (number 4) on all these allegations refers to an article that also just rants about how Dutch doctors run around killing people left and right, clearly not something one would like to see as a foundation for encyclopedic material. Most irritatingly, that rant itself provides no sources for any of its claims, especially some of the more outlandish ones. I'm not used to Wikipedia's tagging style, but I'm going to go and find one that's either NPOV of sources related and slap it on here. Wouter de Groot (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out this was an edit by a single user, adding in the questionable source and biased text. Reverted. Wouter de Groot (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Relevance in need of NPOV 

message: I think it's a widely held misconception that this oath contains the words "First do no harm." I think the article should mention this, and the probable source for that phrase. Thoughts? -- Mjworthey (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page discusses the matter a bit. Really though, I don't know how important this matter is. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First do no harm 

message: Hey, The page isn't for writing the hippocratic oath. The hippocrat oath already exist
doctors aren't checking wikipedia for what the hippocratic oath says. So if a version of the
oath says something, then it says it. The oath isn't the writers biass or antones politics. Everything 
isn't politics, and the oath is one of those things  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.54 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hope doctors (or anyone else) aren't checking Wiki as the arbiter of anything of significance.Jmdeur (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The oath has become very political if it was not always so.  This is made clear by the American "vesrion" of it.  LookingGlass (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep In Mind 

message: It says "the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although nowadays the modernized version of the text varies among the countries." I mean as far as I know e.g in the UK no doctor takes the hippocratic oath and I thought its use elsewhere was an urban myth (although in the new countries where traditions are invented is possible I guess). --BozMo talk 09:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source for "most" I can find is a user generated article on the BBC website where the claim to most is explicitly challenged in the comments. This looks very US centric --BozMo talk 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the content of this article is possibly highly US-centric. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glasgow, Leeds, Peninsula, Leicester and Imperial are all medical schools that make students swear a modified modern oath and/or Geneva declaration (modified hippocratic oath) upon graduation. There may be more UK schools that do this as well Blex areton (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

text: In Russia, every doctor takes a similar oath at graduation. I suppose it is correct to say that it varies by country, but this section is currently highly US-centric, making it confusing. 49.249.207.45 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Use 

message: This entire section (excepting point 3) is highly biased and has no citations for how these portions of the oath are challenged nor by whom they have been challenged. Without these it is simply commentary, I suggest either removing it altogether or finding at least one article alleging modern concerns to these points of the Oath.
I'd also like to draw attention to point 7. To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. 
First this is not even a reference to any portion of any version of the Oath, nor does it refer to any text in the article whatsoever. Whereas, this point does appear to challenge the entire purpose behind the Hippocratic Oath, namely to have the welfare of the patient at the forefront of a doctor's (surgeon, physician, specialist, etc.) ethical position towards their art and career of medicine. All of the descriptions specifying the nature of this challenge refer more to political positions rather than a question of ethics - in particular the statement refers to "conserving economic resources,...or simply making money for the physician or [their] employer," as "conflicting 'good purposes,'" again this is dubious (and no citation doesn't help), these matters are of a political nature rather than notable issues for the 'grass-roots' ethics of the practice of medicine.
:If a citation cannot be found I will first label point 7 dubious for 48 hours, then remove it.
:If it can be found I suggest changing the section of the article to Challenges to the Oath with the challenge of point 7 as the body and have the specific portions as a sub-section.
Salamandre85 (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenged Portions in need of Neutral POV and Citations 

message: The quote in the main text:-
"It is widely believed to have been written by Hippocrates, often regarded as the father of western medicine, or by one of his students."
is contradicted by what I have just heard on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time episode on The Hippocratic Oath.  This is a programme that discusses a topic with invited experts on the subject each week.  At 18 minutes and 3 seconds into the podcast Melvyn says that he gets the impression from the papers written by the experts that there is possibility the Hippocratic Oath "might well be tracked back to Hippocrates himself".  He is immediately contradicted by one of the experts who says "No, I think we are agreeing on that one" - meaning all the experts agree that it is not a possibility it can be tracked back to Hippocrates himself.  If scholars don't believe it can be attributed to Hippocrates himself then it seems misleading to start the article saying it is widely believed to have been written by him (unless by widely believed it is meant that most of the general public believe this).
Here are the links to the page for the programme:-
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/iot_20110915-1201a.mp3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gdqq
More importantly the reference used to justify this sentence in the wikipedia article also says he may not have written it:-
"The famous Hippocratean oath may not be an authentic deliverance of the great master, but is an ancient formula current in his school."
This quote give me the impression he probably didn't write it, which contradicts the first sentence of the article.
If Melvyn is unclear on the issue then its understandable that the writer of the article could be too, so I am just adding this comment to add more information to the debate (I don't claim to have any other knowledge of Hippocrates).  Keep up the good work! :-)  Steve
89.200.138.33 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading introductory sentence 

message: The "Oath Text" section of the article currently opens with a cleanup advisory, referencing the LONGQUOTE standard.
The standard does not apply to this section, and the cleanup advisory should be removed.
The text of the Oath is not a "quote," in the sense of previously-published information about the article's subject. The text of the Oath IS the article's subject.
By comparison: The article on the US Declaration of Independence includes the full text of the Declaration. The article on the British anthem, "God Save the Queen," includes the full lyric of the song. The article on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address includes the full text of the speech. Etc.
98.160.133.243 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If such texts are too long, then they're supposed to be moved to Wikisource.  However, I pretty much agree with you... AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree and have removed the advisory. --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No "Long quote" cleanup required. 

message: I found that the information added to the page was very helpful, especially to the section the original oath broken down. The information seemed very relevant and crucial to understanding what the hippocratic oath is. naming off all the parts to the oath was an excellent addition to the information. Also, I do like the other section about lethal injection that was added. It provided a good example of restrictions and problems faced with this oath during this time. It was very intriguing to read about this and learn that doctors did not administer the injections. 
One thing I see that needs a change is when you stated all the parts of the oath out, maybe try making them more into a bulleted outline or along those lines. This gives more distinction to the parts of it and looks more organized. That way what you are explaining more in detail, shows that it is details and not another part of the oath. I did find that part a little confusing. With the other section, I would try to find a little more about this story and length the section some to make it stronger in the information. Lastly, I think it would be nice to see a little more in the last section about breaking the oath, if possible. Overall though, the page is really well done. K.ebersole (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSCI Peer Review 

message: Hello everybody,
in case it is relevant and acceptable, I'd like to add a link (or file) to a recitation of the original text of the Hippocratic Oath, (recited in reconstructed ancient Greek) for the interested and the curious.
I consider the recitation as an "artistic" rendering, because the prosodic rules that determine the pronunciation aren't 100% known, though enough to apply them if one has the time and the obsession to do so...
If you think that the recording can be included as an external link there are some options:
# a link to the proper page on my website (where one can listen while reading the original + translation a/o watch a video with the same)
# a link to youtube.com of the same audio + text + translation video
# a link to Wikimedia Commons (audio, video or both), where I can upload the relevant material.
Of course, in case you decide to include any of the links, someone else has to do it, because I've produced the recordings and own/maintain the website where it's presented...
Here are the links I'm talking about: 
http://www.podium-arts.com/1697/oath-hippocrates  a/o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5FHZx0oOqs
I'd be grateful for your insights, also for the case I'd like to insert more of this kind of links elsewhere.
Any thoughts?
Thanks for your attention :-)
Ioannis Stratakis
IoannisS (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ext. link to a recording of the oath 

message: Although executions and abortion are referenced, this article is missing any discussion of physician-assisted suicide and related issues with regards to the Oath. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I found words already in this article about abortion and re-named them as a new section.  Also I added substantiating material from a similar, but separate, source.  -SocraticOath (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing discussion 

message: Note 10 (Dorman's article) is supposed to substantiate statistical claims concerning the numbers of medical students swearing some form of the oath in the US and the UK. As far as I can tell, it does not discuss the use of the oath in the UK at all and it does not support the specific statistical claim concerning its use in the US. --131.251.218.4 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources do not substantiate claims 

message: In the lede it says, "The original oath was written in Ionic Greek, in the late Fifth Century BC." but then two sentences later it says "Scholars widely believe that Hippocrates or one of his students wrote the oath between the 5th and 3rd century BC." I would try to reconcile these, but I do not have access to either source. I suspect the latter should be favored, but the former source is more recent (if I'm correct that the latter is a republished Gifford Lecture). Moreover the very next sentence mentions the former source beginning with "alternatively." Am I correct that these three pieces need to be synthesized further? Kakurokuna (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradictory lede 

message: It must be noted that Hippocrates is considered as father of Orthopaedics Trauma and Orthopaedics itself http://pioa.net/documents/Historyoforthopaedics.pdf . The truth really is the fragment of the Oath on the 3rd-century Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2547. Responsible editors should ask American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons via email for any doubt. The Oath was indeed written for who will fix broken bone too not who will perform abortion. Except the greek part and its translation nothing is too much relevant to Hippocrates. Keeping the sub-headers Contents, Text of the oath, Earliest surviving copy and link to "Modern version" should work fine as article and it may be locked. Modern version can be made a separate article with their (non-orthopaedics) opinion, criticism, relevance etc.  Louis Lasagna may have importance to non-orthopaedics and WMA but not to the history of Orthopaedics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.171.206 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Polite note from Orthopaedics to admins 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hippocratic Oath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206154153/http://www.wma.net/en/60about/70history/index.html to http://www.wma.net/en/60about/70history/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please stop editorializing this translation. The translation is from an academic source, and the source is referenced in the page: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/hippocrates_cos-oath/1923/pb_LCL147.299.xml It is not ethical to edit a referenced source. Find another academic translation and source that if you do not agree with the translation, but do not editorialize.
I previously posted this elsewhere in the talk section but due to the large amount of discussion over the translation of this particular word I am adding this under a new heading to link to the dubious tag I have added.
I will explain the issue for you and give you textual references. The translation is based on an extremely liberal translation of IG II 985/CGRN 191 http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/file/191/. In the study of ancient languages they reference item reference numbers and the collection to which it belongs. SIG stands for a german collection of Greek Inscriptions or, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. The standard practice involved tracing paper and rubbing a pencil over the inscription to make an impression. so these collections were the closest thing they had to taking a photo in the field of words carved into stone. now because of weathering/ reusing materials to build other things these inscriptions get broken up and bits fall off over time. So we dont have the complete text. So they sort of guess the bits that are missing. there are also other issues like its expensive and you run out of space so things end up being written like a telegram. you work around defects and try to fit as many letters as you can into the space you have so the grammar isnt always perfect or complete but it communicates the general message. So that page i linked has the pencil and squeeze copy of the inscription from 500 years ago converted to text. the original is locked away somewhere safe in an archive in Vienna because its a 500 year old carbon copy and the original site is unknown or destroyed. we'll never see it so all we have is the text. So when you look up the concordance in perseus-tufts liddell & scott collection you find, "A drug for producing abortion, SIG985.20 (Philadelphia, i B. C.): pl., IG12 (1).789.12 (Lindos, ii A. D.); cf. φθόριος 1." as the definition and reference. "SIG985.20 (Philadelphia, i B. C.)" refers to SIG 985 line 20 from 1st century BC, Philadelphia in ancient turkey. now here's where it gets interesting. the bits in brackets are the imaginary guessing parts they added to it because it seemed right. you can see it for yourself in that link by pressing the show/hide restorations button. I'll give a brief rough translation derived from a concordance of the available texts.
19...μὴ
no
20φίλτρον, μὴ φθορεῖον, μὴ [ἀτ]οκεῖον, μ[ὴ ἄλλο τι παιδο]-
Philtre(love potions) no (φθορεῖον ????) no contraceptives, n[o anything to do with children]
φόνον μήτε αὐτοὺς ἐπιτελεῖν μήτε [ἑτέρωι συμβου]-
killing no doing these things no doing these things [in groups]
λεύειν μηδὲ συνιστορεῖν, ἀποστερ[οῦντες δὲ μη]-
δὲν εὐνοεῖν τῶι οἴκωι τῶιδε, καὶ ἐὰν τ[ις τούτων τι ποι]-
ῆι ἢ ἐπιβο[υλε]ύῃ, μήτε ἐπιτρέψειν μή[τε παρασιω]-
19 μή
no
20φίλτρον, μὴ φθορεῖον, μὴ οκεῖον, μ
philtre, no φθορεῖον???, no home, no
φόνον
killing
I'll get to the translation of φθορεῖον in a moment, this is the word they interpret as abortion but the greeks already had a word for abortion, ἄμβλωσι. it's the same word across dorian, ionic, attic and koine texts. there are multiple instances of it being used perfectly in this context in the perseus-tufts library. So what has happened is that they dont know what the words were because they were destroyed. so we guess what they meant. then we find this other word, φθορεῖον and say hey well we made up these words over here so this word must mean what we made up too so we'll say that φθορεῖον is related to killing children so it must mean abortion. but the thing is that we actually have multiple examples of a conjugation of this word, φθορεύς in lots of other extant texts which means to seduce or corrupt. so all we can positively derive from this part of the text is that this private cult in lydia wasnt a place to hook-up or commit ritual murders. what a kill-joy.
The reason this is relevant is that this is the same word which is translated in the Hippocratic oath as abortion. So it may as well be translated as no seducing patients ie. diddling while performing gynaecological procedures. although this word is complex because corruption, as a theme in ancient greece was a result of the progress of time, recalling the platonic ideals, things once existed in their perfect, pure form but fall to decay over time. So in this context f'thoreon can also mean wear like a pair of jeans or a virgin on her prima nocta. so it's still not totally clear what is meant although it seems more likely that creative well intentioned fabrications have served as a skandalon in regards to properly translating this text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.196.38 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The section I've blockquoted above was added by 2605:E000:1300:86B1:4C52:AD49:75E3:421 (talk)  here. I've left it there as evidence to the issue instead of just moving it to its own section. It's pretty bad form to edit someone else's talk post without either signing or in some way signifying that it is a different person, especially when you're arguing with them. I was considering posting a PSA here yesterday about a potential edit war, but I didn't think there was enough reverting to back that up yet. Well, there certainly is now. I'd like to point out that this is an unregistered user making edits to currently highly controversial subjects without consulting the current community discussion. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to the way they edited the talk page- they're unregistered, could have been a mistake- but regardless, I have a little concern for their quick dismissal of opposition. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right in that you do not need to be a registered user to make edits, and I'll give you that they were present in that diff- I'm sorry I missed that. I will however say that you came very close to violating WP:3RR and your communication wasn't exactly civil. Given most vandalism is done by unregistered users, it seemed to be a new addition, and its on a currently controversial subject, I don't think my judgement was entirely unreasonable, given those facts. Regardless, I'll apologize. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My communication was direct and factual. You should not be judging situations without fully investigating the facts. You violated WP:AGF when you incorrectly reverted my edits without any evidence of malicious intentions on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1300:86B1:D8B8:AAA3:321D:B6F (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious abortion translation 

message: The intro paragraphs highlight the swearing by different gods as a feature of the oath. This is nothing that needs to be emphasized. All oaths have since their inception been about seeking a covenant to do something before the gods, and this was "the gods'" pragmatic purpose - one of the 3 most often mentioned Delphic maxims about not swearing blood oaths is an example of how far back this goes.  The word for oath in Greek XPO or "Chro" is the same as Chronos, the Titan of time. 
So the fact the oath invokes the gods is really a feature of the legal conventions of the time and nothing that needs to be emphasized in the article for the mass public.  It would be like highlighting in a modern legal text the fact it has "Preamble" and "Whereas" clauses. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlighting the Gods