The author sets up the critics' negative views of the Hippocratic oath in the first paragraph. She then uses the second paragraph to explain/reason why the critics' issues with the oath are ill founded.
It is clear that the author disagrees with the critics, and she plainly explains why she disagrees: "morally based arguments concerning the contemporary values and newly relevant issues cannot negate the patients' need for assurance that physicians will pursue appropriate goals in treatment in accordance with generally acceptable standards of professionalism (41-47)."
She explains that in order to "fulfill that need" the main principle of beneficence should be kept (47-50.) She even explains that today it is common to reinterpret the traditional wording of the oath: "with today's safer ad more effective surgical techniques it is understood to function as a promise to practice within the confines of one's expertise, which remains a necessary safeguard for patients' safety and well-being (57-61)."
The author is not guarded in her disagreement with the critics' belief that the oath is outdated. She clearly explains and reasons out why she believes the oath is important and should stay as is.
If she were guarded, she would be more hesitant in her arguments against the critics, whereas the whole of the second paragraph clearly points out that she is not in accord with the critics.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
