To help, or to do no harm 115
(‘get healthy’) andH
(‘be released from’) are the
only terms that really indicate a full restoration of health;^49 and of the vari-
ous translations available for these words (e.g. ‘therapy’, ‘treatment’, ‘cure’,
‘care’, ‘attention’, etc.), ‘healing’ is very often not the appropriate rendering.
Accordingly, recommendations of particular modes of treatment are often
expressed in terms such as
(‘it is profitable’),
!
(‘it
is suitable’),"
(‘it is appropriate’) andM !=
(‘it is fitting’).
As such, these terms and expressions provide a good illustration of the
way in which the principle ‘to help, or to do no harm’ is interpreted in prac-
tice. We can see this principle at work particularly in the actual treatment
advocated by the authors of the nosological works (On Diseases 1 , 2 , 3 ,On
Internal Affections). In these works symptomatology, causal explanation and
therapy of diseases are fairly consistently adopted as distinctive categories –
and as such they resemble the apparently even more systematic discussion
of diseases and their treatment as offered by Diocles in the workAffec-
tion, Cause, Treatmentmentioned above. Reading through the therapeutic
sections of these works, three points are particularly striking. The first is
that on several occasions inOn Internal AffectionsandOn Diseases 2 and
3 a course of treatment is recommended in the full awareness of the lethal
nature of the disease.^50 One of the reasons for doctors such as the author
ofOn Internal Affectionsto adopt this attitude is clearly that they realise
that it is very difficult to establish whether a particular case is hopeless or
not, indeed that a certain mode of treatment may, by provoking a certain
physical reaction, provide clarification on this,^51 or alternatively that by
postponing treatment for too long, the disease may further exacerbate and
become definitely incurable (though not necessarily fatal).^52 On the other
hand, there are cases in which the doctor is advised to wait and see how
the disease develops before deciding whether to treat it or not,^53 or to infer
from certain symptoms whether the disease is curable or not.^54 Yet there are
also several cases where the patient’s chances of survival are considered to be
negligibly small, but where treatment is nevertheless recommended.^55 The
purpose of treatment in such cases is not always stated, but it may be, as
(^49) An interesting collocation of the terms -
0 "
0 +and
is found in
Int. Aff. 26 ( 7. 234 L.).
(^50) On degrees of ‘mortality’ see von Staden ( 1990 ) 79 – 80. The idea that Hippocratic doctors did not
engage, or were reluctant to engage, in treatment of hopeless cases – though not without some
textual support, e.g.On the Art of Medicine 8 ,On Diseases 2. 48 – has been shown to be untenable
in its generalising claims by Wittern ( 1979 ) and von Staden ( 1990 ). For a more recent discussion of
this issue see also Prioreschi ( 1992 ).
(^51) Int. Aff. 27 ( 7. 238 L.); 41 ( 7. 270 L.). (^52) Int. Aff. 26 ( 7. 236 L.); 47 ( 7. 284 L.).
(^53) E.g.On Diseases 3. 2 ( 7. 120 L.). (^54) Int. Aff. 22 ( 7. 220 L.).
(^55) E.g.On Diseases 2. 57 ( 7. 88 – 90 L.); 3. 1 ( 7. 118 L.); 3. 5 ( 7. 122 L.); 3. 6 ( 7. 124 L.); 3. 10 ( 7. 130 L.); 3. 11
( 7. 132 L.); 3. 14 ( 7. 134 – 6 L.);Int. Aff. 6 ( 7. 182 L.); 29 ( 7. 244 L.).