Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 12/06/2005 1:39:29 PM PST by SJackson
Law states life of terminally ill person who does not wish to continue living will not be extended artificially; health minister: ‘This is one of most important laws passed by Knesset. It represents major moral value for terminally ill and their families’
After years of preparation involving doctors and rabbis, Israel has added a new law to its statute that states that the life of a terminally ill person who is in great pain and does not wish to continue to live will not be extended artificially.
Some 22 Knesset Members voted in favor of the government sponsored Passive Euthanasia Law, to which private proposals were added by a number of Knesset Members. Only three voted against the law.
The law will come into effect in a year’s time, and the Ministry of Health and hospitals will begin preparations for its application.
Health Minister Danny Nave described the passing of the law as a historic moment, saying: "This is one of the most important laws passed by the Knesset. It represents major moral value for the terminally ill and their families."
Knesset Member Reshef Chayne (Shinui), who added his own proposal to the law, said during the meeting: "Every person should be able to give written instructions, while being fully aware, in which they can say that if they are in a permanent vegetative state, and dependent on resuscitation, they can be disconnected from life support machines. In a situation of terminal illness, there is redemption in this option, which has been previously denied. Worse, a prolonging of life at times causes suffering to the patient."
He added: "If it was up to me, the same should be true of those in non-terminally ill situations, like a vegetative state."
Knesset Member Moshe Gafni (Flag of Torah) said, "This is a supremely important law in the sphere of morals." However, he decided to object to the law, "because not all of the rulings of Jewish law have been upheld."
The law will apply to people with incurable diseases who have up to six months to live, or a person who has suffered a number of bodily system crashes, and who doctors believe has up to two weeks to live.
'Current law not enough'
The law says that if a patient is unable to express an opinion, a decision will be taken based on instructions he or she gave to doctors beforehand. If there are no such instructions, a declaration will have to be made by a close relative or custodian.
According to the law, a child or teenager younger than 17 may be represented by his or her parents. In the case of disagreement between the parents, or between parents and medical staff, an institutional committee will make the decision.
The law is also based on halacha, or Jewish law, which was used to approach the problematic issue of discontinuing life support machines.
Yitzhak Hoshen, who handled many requests by terminally ill patients to be disconnected from life support machines, told Ynet that the law was important, but not sufficient. "This law only deals with a terminally ill patient who has days to live. It doesn't deal with other situations, like when patients with incurable diseases have many years to live, such as those who are in vegetative states," he said.
Meital Yasur Bat-Or contributed to the report
..................
terminally ill person who does not wish to continue living will not be extended artificially
I'm not sure I'd call that passive Euthanasia
It's conatagious ... this "compassion" for the terminally ill.
Jewish law prohibits active euthanasia. However, there is a wide range of opinions on what constitutes active, as opposed to passive, euthanasia.
Professor Avraham Steinberg, author of the Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refu'it and instrumental in the drafting of Shaul Yahalom's euthanasia bill, discusses the opinions in his book.
All rabbis agree that even passive euthanasia is permissible only after it has been determined that the patient is terminally ill and further treatment is not only futile but also adds suffering.
Jewish law does not take into consideration the age, mental lucidity, or socioeconomic status of the patient. Nor does Jewish law allow euthanasia in order to shorten suffering.
Suffering, according certain opinions in Jewish theology, is determined by God and, therefore, must be allowed to take its course.
Steinberg presents three basic approaches to treatment of terminally patients in pain. The first, most stringent, approach makes no distinctions between different types of patients. Every effort must be made to lengthen life.
The second approach posits that if the patient asks for relief from suffering, it is permitted to refrain from administering treatment.
The third approach, which Steinberg seems to accept, prohibits the active lengthening of life in cases of great pain.
In the footnotes to his encyclopedia, Steinberg recounts the death of his own father. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Orbach, considered one of the greatest halachic authorities of the modern era, directed him to discontinue nor-epinephrine, a drug that stabilizes blood pressure, after Steinberg's father's respiratory system and kidneys failed.
However, Steinberg adds that all the natural needs of the patient, such as food and oxygen, must be provided. Treatment such as antibiotics, that prevents complications common to non-terminally patients must also be continued.
Although he quotes a long list of rabbis who permit disconnecting a terminally patient from life support systems, he states that the majority prohibit it. However, even these more stringent rabbis allow the disconnecting in certain situations. For instance, if it was necessary to stop life support to conduct treatment, it is permitted to refrain from restarting the system. Others allow the system to be incrementally phased out.
life of a terminal country, suffering great pain...
I disagree. This law says that those patients must not suffer from passive or active euthanasia.
I think it is interesting the way Hoshen uses the term incurable "diseases" when he brings up vegetative states. I don't view a vegetative state as a "disease" as much as I consider it a "condition". Hoshen belies his bias against preserving life by describing a vegetative state as a "disease". I urge all to beware of where this could lead.
Euthanasia ping.
Poor terminology- this should be persistent instead of permanent, because none of us are God and can really tell if someone's condition is permanent or not. Sarah Scantlin comes to mind. Thought to be in a PVS, but she started talking last Jan. or Feb. after being in her condition for some 19 years. Permanent? No. Persistent? Yes. And now no longer in either.
Moral absolutes ping.
Like you, I don't think this is actually euthanasia at all.
This article is more than a little bit ambiguous. The headline says it's "euthanasia," but the text says that neither active euthanasia nor the termination of nutrition (nor hydration, I suppose?) would be permitted. But turning off a respirator, or refusing treatment which is burdensome and futile, is not, as I understand it, euthanasia. Not if the intention is to make the dying patient less encumbered and more comfortable.
It's an intention to deliberately kill which defines euthanasia and makes it morally offensive. Taking a dying person off a ventilator can be done with a sincere intention of making the end more personal, more comfortable, and without an intention of killing them. Despite removal from her ventilator, Karen Ann Quinlan lived for nine more years, still sustained by tube feeding. When asked if he wanted the feeding tube removed, Karen's father answered, "Oh no, that's her nourishment".
So as far as I can see from the article, this legislation doesn't involve the intention to kill. It's just a palliative treatment model, which is morally acceptable.
It's what we've chosen for my father, who, at 91 years of age, and very frail, his mind much weakened by vascular dementia, is still in our home with support from a Home Hospice program, and may, God willing, live to be 105; but if he has crisis we're not doing a Code Blue, jumping on his chest and putting him on a ventilator.
I would venture to say that the fear of painful, invasive, expensive and useless treatment in one's last weeks of life is what causes some people to say, "Oh, just kill me." This is very wrong. People MUST have both a right to ordinary care at all times (including nutrition and hydration, and effective pain medication) to make them comfortable, and the freedom to decline or end futile chemo, radiation, drugs, surgery, ventilator, and other too-burdensome treatments.
Note that I said the treatments could be judged "too burdensome." I didn't say the LIFE could be judged "too burdensome." Nobody has a right to make that judgment. That is strictly God's jurisdiction.
My father-in-law did not want his life prolonged by extraordinary means.
When he suffered his final stroke, my sister-in-law requested that the hospital staff NC ("No Code")
The next day she came back, she found her father drugged into unconsciousness whereas the day before he had been partially lucid. In other words, he was being prepped to die!
Immediately she revoked the "No Code" and my father-in-law received treatment and feeding again.
This happened in Pennsylvania.
perhaps I missread. you are right DNR is not pulling a feeding tube.
Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
*************
Sadly, I believe you are correct in your warning.
I seem to remember Pope John Paul II asked not to be taken to the hospital the day before he died. He was in great pain and it was obvious his condition could only be temporarily eased as organs would begin to fail.
This is a little tricky, because "passive" euthanasia seems to describe the situation with the pope.
I agree with you - this is a poorly written article. I don't think this is any different than what the Church teaches about extraordinary end-of-life care for terminal illnesses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.