Of course some doctors are going to break their oath and do horrible unethical things, particularly in extreme situations such as wartime and under totalitarian regimes. But that's a dumb argument, you might as well say, well, people are always going to steal so let's not have any laws on stealing. The vast majority of doctors in a functioning society will uphold their oath first because they believe in it and second because their career depends on following it.

An Oath and law are completely different things (you won't go to jail for breaking your oath and you can very much go to jail even if you did not break it). In fact laws and oath are the two opposing sides in this very thread! Robocat is advocating for laws, and bobsmooth responds arguing in favor of oath.

Look at how many doctors stood up to say that the lab leak theory shouldn't be censored.

Look how many doctors are publicly stating that mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports are a violation of human rights and medical ethics.

Not too many. And certainly not the majority.

They're out there - but they are pariahed, smeared, and even getting death threats.

The problem with most of the statement is that it is subjective. It is not a black and white issue of ethics of mandatory vaccines. Arguments with merits exist on both sides the argument. And mandatory vaccination with the exclusion of religious and sound medical reasons (can't because of chemo therapy), have existed outside of COVID and has ruled in courts to be valid. However this is not a discussion on the ethics of medicine.

>this is not a discussion on the ethics of medicine.

It's a discussion of ethics. So...

I maintain that the fact doctors are so silent on important issues - however subjective they may be to you - shows that trusting in a code of ethics rather than _actual impartial oversight and accountability_ is daft.

And that applies equally as much to engineers and tech.