It is true that while the use of unproven treatments, like herbal medicine, become more popular, several issues concerning ethics emerge. Initially, there were very limited material and information concerning the topic of ethics and its application in herbal medicine. This article, therefore, intends to point out how ethics could be applied in the issue of herbal medicines as a form of alternative medicine. Therefore, it is more appropriate that this topic is approached collectively. The two sorts of medicine could work together so that knowledge and skills would be exchanged from one point to the other. Specifically, research partnership should be fostered for a way forward in unproven treatments.
Those in support of the right to promote unproven treatments argue that in the modern and civilized society that we are living in all people should be allowed to live without pain and indignity. This holds according to Hippocratic Oath. They should also allow other people to assist them in doing so if they cannot manage this act on their own. This is where the physicians come in. This would give the person the last chance at dignity or possible cure considering the fact that if treatment was not done right they would still kill themselves through other undignified means such as suicide. They considered that prevention to the right to promote unproven treatments is a violation of their personal freedom as well as their human rights when it comes to matters of life.
The main intention of medical intervention is to prevent and relieve pain and not just the prolongation or preservation of life. This makes it seem very imperative not to rethink the reluctance in this profession and allow the right to promote unproven treatments or even to be present when such assisted suicide is being carried out. All that is required is a legal guarantee of protection and the physician can go ahead and execute the request. When a physician is sworn in, they make a number of swearing to uphold life and not to terminate it but this does not mean there is no room for stereotypes who can question such oaths as well as their relevance.
The Hippocratic Oath, for example, has been modified over time to suit the needs of various communities that depend on Greek medical practices. This means that it can still be modified to allow a right to promote unproven treatments. Those who are against the right to promote unproven treatments often turn and point at the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition to experiment with life. This is an attempt to legitimize their viewpoints but they should also not forget that this oath is only used as a symbol of coherence in the profession as it links the generations of medical practitioners that date back to over 200 years ago but not due to its content. The pithy sentences in this oath cannot be taken to be an encompassing maxim of professional responsibility in medical practice which can limit or allow the actions a practitioner can execute.
In conclusion, it should be noted that life should be treated as a gift that is beyond human life. This statement is however open for criticism in the sense that it is morally right to promote unproven treatments as a personal choice. Physicians and other medical practitioners are required to prolong and preserve life but depending on the case at hand and the issuance of authorization by the law and the patient, they can go ahead and grant him/her request in the context of unproven treatments. For example, patients who are not under depression and are terminally ill should be granted their wish to try out unproven treatments. The tenets that have bound the health practitioners together are changing drastically and this is one of the reasons why many clauses in the practice guides are ever being modified now. Only a few modifications need to be implemented before the broad span of treatment can be felt. After all, physicians should not turn away from the special needs of each of their patients who have bestowed their trust in them and thus it is morally right to promote unproven treatments.