Talk:Declaration of Geneva

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

1. I cannot find a reference to the declaration as being "a formulation of that oath's moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly." That should probably be changed to a quote from the WMA Manual of Ethics, pg 24 ^[1] "to update the Hippocratic Oath for 20th century use."
2. A more neutral link of the original Declaration of Geneva than euthanasia.com should be considered if a copy of the original is deemed necessary.
3. Although a discussion of the meaning/importance of the revisions to the declaration may be useful, the final section of the page seems biased to the pro-life POV. The major criticism of the current version of the Declaration appears to largely come from the pro-life arena.
4. I think a return to an earlier version which delineates the history of the Declaration as a reaction to the Nazi atrocities and the text of Declaration itself might be better. With perhaps a discussion of its linking to the Declaration of Helsinki^[2] and the International Code of Medical Ethics ^[3].
Lakewhatcom (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article has criticisms does not mean it is not neutral. Feel free to edit to indicate the reasons proffered for the deletions from the original declaration. Mamalujo (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to the latest contributor, [‎141.136.157.95], now it looks most great! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added reference to Axis atrocities and included a text of the original version.

YourHumanRights (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Physician's Oath essentially repeats a portion of this article, and could quite easily be merged into this page with no loss of information. --Terminator484 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that, upon sourcing and updating the oath's text, I didn't notice that the user who added it had noted that this was the original, outdated text of the oath. Now the article contains the current text, which recognizes that female physicians exist and doesn't suggest that the medical profession disallows abortion. In order to avoid conveying misinformation to the reader, I suggest that if the article contains the text of the oath (which user Agostinho.Sousa seems to oppose, so why don't you talk that out) it contain the current text; changes from the original can be explained in-text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What excuse do you offer for quickly deleting the original text of this document - as it remained from 1948 to 1968? Do you seriously think that deleting it from wikipedia makes it vanish from history? Are you aware that the original version is still adhered to by a majority of the doctors in the world - a world that features a majority of countries in which elective abortion is illegal?

YourHumanRights (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done a version which includes one text and reflects various revisions. It looks bad and is dumb, but is one way of dealing with a user who sees Wikipedia's sole purpose as the promotion of his political agenda, and at least keeps the reader informed about what the current standards of the profession are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria here? A Google Books search indicates disambiguation is in order, it's obviously not primary topic WRT the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Declaration of Geneva. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]