Have We Sacrificed The Hippocratic Oath For Power and Profit?

How Marginalizing The Hippocratic Oath Is Eroding Healthcare

Scrolling through my email a few weeks ago, I came upon an article in The Epoch Times (3/3/2026) titled, “The Oath We Think Doctors Take” written by journalist, regenerative farmer and rancher, Molly Engelhart. The article (which you can find at the link below) lead me to reflect on the Hippocratic Oath, not only on its role in my professional life but also its role generally for the medical profession now and in the future.

There are many modern variations in multiple languages of the original Oath, easily accessible on the internet. Below is the link to a French version followed by the Geneva version.

A partial list of the obligations outlined in the Hippocratic Oath include:

• the importance of maintaining and safeguarding the privacy of patient information,
• respecting the patient’s free will and autonomy,
• communicating respectfully with patients and colleagues,
• reducing suffering,
• not allowing monetary considerations to interfere with the doctor’s work,
• respecting the sanctity of life,
• maintaining one’s independence,
• acting respectfully with patients and colleagues and
• working to the best of one’s ability.

However, what has guided my behaviour and is most illustrative of what I believe should be a doctor’s guiding principle is the broadly encompassing phrase: Above All, Do No Harm.

These many decades later, those words still ring true to me. After 40+ years as a doctor and almost 4 years post retirement working as a Health Coach, the Oath and that phrase still guide my work. So, you may wonder, what’s the problem?

In my view, there is a major problem. Modern medicine has lost its way since the time of Hippocrates those many centuries ago.

Medical Boards, the institutions mandated to oversee the quasi-sacred Quality of Care, do not judge whether doctors are fulfilling the spirit of the Oath or not.  Instead, doctors are held to uphold the poorly defined Quality of Care standard, a standard which varies from country to country, from state to state, from province to province. What is acceptable or even encouraged in one state, province or country can be viewed as criminal behaviour elsewhere.

As the Quebec College of Physicians reminded me on many occasions, “we are in Quebec”, explaining that, obviously, the rules for patient care change according to geography and politics. What is acceptable in Ontario or Alberta is irrelevant, patient outcome notwithstanding.

Modern medical practice is tightly controlled and place specific. It all starts in medical schools; first with the criteria used to choose who is permitted to enter the hallowed halls and classrooms of the modern medical school, then what is actually taught and, more importantly, what is not taught in those schools.

The result of this control is that, all too often, doctors merely give “lip service” to the words of the Hippocratic Oath as they rush through their overbooked schedules in their under-resourced work environments. These workdays often consist of all-too-short 10 or 15 minute appointment times for each patient.

I’ve actually had many patients tell me of a previous doctor limiting their complaints (i.e. reason for consulting) to the two “most important”. This forced the patient to evaluate and choose which symptoms he could or could not, should or should not, describe. It also excluded potentially important information for the doctor to work with to arrive at a diagnosis and choose a treatment.

This is so wrong on so many levels that it would take a chapter to even partially address this mind-boggling instruction to choose two symptoms. It’s just simply bad medicine. It’s so sad that the doctor feels obliged to make these rules in order to get through their day.

The ever-growing amount of obligatory paperwork and computer work now takes up a larger and growing chunk of available time and energy. There are more and more test results available, an explosion of medical information to learn and apply while seeing an increasingly sick population. This should normally require more time to properly evaluate and not shorter appointments.

With the increasing well-documented “disease burden” of the general population, the doctor has inadequate face-to-face time with the patient for a proper history taking, full discussion, physical examination and time to reflect, discuss, plan, and explain a course of action going forward. It’s a rush, rush, rush situation which leaves both the patient and the doctor dissatisfied.

What is the most troubling is that these time pressures interfere with the ability to properly diagnose.  Diagnosis is the basis of good medicine. Without a proper and adequate diagnosis, there can be no adequate, properly targeted treatment.

There is also the problem of respecting the oftentimes restrictive limitations of the so-called Standard of Care (SoC), quasi-holy criteria which often vary wildly from one geographic and political location to another. Oftentimes, the limitations of SoC criteria can have a negative effect on patient outcome by limiting choice and applying a cookie-cutter approach to care.

SoC is, doctors are told, the latest and best of treatment options. It usually refers to the latest patented medication “suggested” for the diagnosis, the next “safe and effective” vaccine or a particular surgical procedure.

When the patent expires for the medication, cheaper generic versions of the drug become available to the public. Inevitably, a “new and improved” patentable medicine or class of medication is coincidentally “discovered”, introduced and aggressively marketed. Each new medication is usually more expensive than the previous generation of medications and inevitably becomes the Standard of Care.

Despite the fact that non “standard of care” treatments are often demonstrably more effective, significantly cheaper with fewer side effects resulting oftentimes in a better outcome, these alternatives are, all too often, not only discouraged but actively disparaged. The doctor who takes the “alternative” route (i.e. non SoC) risks censure and disciplinary action even in the face of a successful outcome.

On the other hand, the doctor who follows the Standard of Care risks nothing even if the patient does poorly or dies from a “known” and acceptable side effect.

The non-SoC approach often includes safe, well researched and/or time-tested options such as  supplements (oral or intravenous), dietary approaches, fascia therapy, chiropractic treatment, acupuncture, osteopathy and homeopathy to name but a few of the dozens of “alternative” or complementary approaches. Oftentimes, when the alternative approach is combined with the SoC medication, the medication can be used at a much lower effective dose, thus minimizing the risk of medication side effects.

Standard of care ”guidelines”, established by putative experts, are theoretically merely suggestions for doctors to follow. In reality, over time, these guidelines have become more akin to orders or obligations, almost like religious edicts. On countless occasions, I have witnessed situations where rigorous adherence to standard of care guidelines resulted in harm and suffering for the patient. The well-meaning and prudent doctor is obliged to follow the “guidelines” for fear of censure or worse.

Over time, the behaviour of doctors has evolved from being patient-centred, as described in the Hippocratic Oath, to being one of risk-reduction behaviour, or what we can call doctor-centred.

Risk-reduction behaviour is, of course, a normal, coherent reaction for any animal to protect itself in the face of danger. The medical doctor, adhering without question to standard of care criteria, is employing risk-reduction behaviour. This is logical and sensible behaviour, albeit not always in the best interests of the patient as mandated by the Oath.

A different approach to wellness, or a different treatment option, will generally be avoided for fear of putting the doctor in danger; the danger being a potentially significant loss of income through suspension of a license or merely an intrusive and time-consuming investigation or worse.

When I speak of stepping outside the Stand of Care box, I am, of course, not advocating commission of crimes of sexual or physical abuse nor excusing gross incompetence. Criminal law and medical tribunals are adequate to deal with those situations.

I’m referring to situations where, after adequate reflection, including an open and frank, properly documented discussion with the patient/client, a course of action is chosen by the person that most aligns with their goals and values. Exercising “free will”, the person always retains the option of changing their mind. In short, the doctor should never be put in a position of risk or danger for straying from (so-called) standard of care guidelines when that represents the patient’s wishes and, above all, does no harm.

We must understand that the risks to the doctor for not following SoC guidelines are very real. The punishment can include:

• Months to years of judicial proceedings.
• Fines that can run into the tens of thousands of dollars or more.
• Suspension for varying periods of time, including permanent revocation of license.

In this way, doctors are often operating in a climate of fear and intimidation that can influence every medical decision;

• From requests for blood tests (which ones are permitted or not) or other procedure
• To what diagnoses are “permitted” or not under SoC guidelines,
• To what treatments are permitted
• To which conferences are recognized and encouraged as part of obligatory educational hours and which are dismissed or even ridiculed.

We can now understand how the well-being of the patient as described in the Hippocratic Oath has slowly been replaced by another motivation which, in practical terms, overrides the Hippocratic Oath; the motivation of the doctor to survive and continue to work as a doctor, to pay their bills, to support their family. The young doctors are mostly initially very highly motivated to learn and to “do good”. They then find themselves in a tightly controlled and highly regulated profession in which patient well-being often takes a back seat to so-called standard of care.

It is no coincidence, nor is it a secret, that doctors represent that portion of the population with some of the highest rates of stress, depression, burnout and suicide. This situation is, in my view, the result of working under constant stress in what has become an incoherent system that has abandoned the goals of the patient-oriented Hippocratic Oath.

During my almost half a century of experience, I have witnessed many doctors who have lost the ability to even listen when an alternative approach is brought forward by the patient. They react to any suggestions outside the SoC with phrases such as; “I did not learn about this in school” or “I heard it was useless.” In fairness to doctors, what is the point of having an open mind when the use of a non-sanctioned approach can represent real danger to the doctor despite providing benefit to the patient?

In this situation, where the interests of the patient are no longer primordial, are no longer front and centre but rather are secondary to Standard of Care considerations, it is no wonder that decisions are no longer patient centred; i.e. the doctor no longer adheres to the Hippocratic Oath.

Surprisingly perhaps, my advice is not to resent or disrespect our doctors. I suggest our attitude be one of compassion. Doctors are generally doing the best that they can in a difficult, often incoherent, situation. They are as much victims as are their patients. They are put in an impossible position, asked to live up to the Hippocratic Oath only to come face-to-face with often contradictory requirements and obligations. In order to survive in our failing system, they cannot put the patient first. Importantly, it can be difficult to recognize and admit this incoherence.

Doctors have been educated to believe the sanctity and purity of everything they have been taught, to trust all the “scientific” studies. They have not learned that a large percentage of these studies (probably the majority) have serious, well documented and published methodological faults, rendering their conclusions suspect.

As an example, the reader need only remember those “studies” supporting the covid “vaccinations”. One of these studies, published in a major, reputable medical journal, was actually withdrawn shortly after publication. It was apparently and unbelievably pure, invented fiction.

Remember the whole Covid fiasco in general;

• the “safe and effective injections” that turned out to be neither safe nor effective,
• the obligation to “vaccinate” children and young adults, although they were at little to no risk from covid,
• the decision to “vaccinate” pregnant women, although there were no studies confirming safety for the mother or the fetus!

And the Hippocratic Oath in all this?

• Has it become the Hipocrytic Oath?
• Has the medical profession lost its way?
• Has it fallen prey to rapacious financial interests?

My view is that the answers are yes, yes and yes.

Beating our heads against a closed door will not open it. We are in a fight  to restore the ubiquitous declining health of every swath of our population – the young, the younger and the youngest, the middle and the elderly. All statistics measuring health are trending steeply, depressingly downward.

It’s time for a change. Know that a change is happening as people awaken. It’s inevitable. Our role is to behave with compassion and gentleness, yet stay firm, focused and determined. Our role is also to refuse abuse, to refuse dismissal of our concerns and complaints. If we are refused or denied, find another path. If we are dismissed or disrespected, look elsewhere.

Remember, the Hippocratic Oath is a doctor’s oath of service. The doctor’s role, the doctor’s job, is to serve the patient/the client, not the other way around.

My advice: stand your ground calmly with respect and determination and calm in the face of a dismissive and disrespectful doctor. Have compassion but do not tolerate abuse. Take control and responsibility for your own health. Be the adult in the room.

Be well. Be strong.

Barry Breger, MD (ret), health coach

Barry Breger worked as an orthomolecular, integrative medical doctor for over 40 years before retiring in 2022. He now consults as a Health Coach, serves on the Board of Directors of the Canada Health Alliance and is a Consultant to the Anti-Aging Alliance.

The sources for this article include:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/the-oath-we-think-doctors-take-5988846
https://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/medecin/devoirs-droits/serment-dhippocrate