[gramontblanc]

Is there an outside definition of medical ethics that can really be impartially compared from generation to generation? I'm certain all previous generations thought they were acting in good faith as well.

Progress towards 'changing people's minds' is dangerous for the same reasons across all times and places.

[whatshisface]

>Is there an outside definition of medical ethics that can really be impartially compared from generation to generation?

That's a legitimate criticism of doing anything, but the problem is that it applies to, well, anything. Anything you do today could be seen as a horrifying atrocity by future generations, unless there exists some kind of boundary on what ethical stances a culture might adopt. There could be limits, but in that case there is an outside definition of medical ethics. If there isn't an outside definition then maybe in 100 years haircuts will be seen as mutilation[0].

[0] There are some cultures with strict rules about facial hair, so even though this example might sound ridiculous it actually serves to illustrate the point.

[tcoff91]

How is this different than psychiatric drugs? Those change your mind as well.

[gramontblanc]

(if the study replicates), the targeted precision and long term persistence of therapeutic effects. If someone prescribes you a pill for being gay and you don't want to be cured of being gay, you could always just stop taking it later if you were able to leave the despotic regime / cruel family structure / religious community binding you.

[cat199]

> Is there an outside definition of medical ethics that can really be impartially compared from generation to generation?

well, doctors do take a form of the hippocratic oath which dates to ~400 BC, so ...