Posted on 04/13/2005 11:28:12 AM PDT by SJackson
Like the mental state of the incapacitated woman at its center, the Schiavo Saga doesn't lend itself to a simple label. On one level it exists as a family feud; on another, as a political football; and on yet another as a cultural touchstone.
But regardless of the motivations of the husband or parents of Terri Schiavo, who as of this writing is dying of court-ordered dehydration, regardless of the propriety of congressional involvement in the matter and regardless of what reactions to the case might or might not say about America as a society, the tumult has also been a teaching moment, an opportunity for us all to ponder nothing less than the meaning of life. And Judaism, here as always, has much to teach.
Jewish religious law, or halacha, does not always insist that life be maintained. When, for instance, a person is in the state called "goseis" - "moribund [and] in imminent danger of death," in Rabbi J.David Bleich's words, Judaism forbids intercessions that will prolong suffering, although the active removal of connected life-support systems is another matter entirely. And there are times when even a healthy Jewish person is required by halacha to forfeit his or her life -- most famously, when preserving life would entail the performance of an act of idol-worship, murder or sexual immorality.
However, when an individual is incapacitated, even severely, but clearly alive, Judaism considers that life to possess no less value than that it possessed before it was compromised. Even a previously expressed desire to be killed if in such a state, while of considerable import in American law, carries no halachic weight at all. Although there are those who like to assert otherwise, the Jewish high ideal is not autonomy but responsibility.
It is not hard to make a slippery slope case here. In the Netherlands, where patients in compromised states have been "mercy-killed" for years by doctors, today 16-year-olds with "emotional pain" can legally enlist medical help in committing suicide (a 15-year-old requires parental consent).
And there is already at least scholarly slip-sliding in our own country, like the pronouncements of renowned ethicist Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, who not only advocates the killing of the severely disabled and unconscious elderly but has made the case as well for the dispatching of babies who are severely disabled. Such children, he has written, are "neither rational nor self-conscious" and so "the principles that govern the wrongness of killing nonhuman animals ... must apply here, too." Or, as he more bluntly puts it, "The life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee."
The Jewish view, though, of lives like Terry Schiavo's is, in the end, not dependent on slopes or slippage. According to halacha, withholding food and water from a person in a "persistent vegetative state" is, in and of itself, a grave wrong. Judaism invests human life -- no matter how limited it may seem -- with inherent, infinite meaning.
It is not surprising that the incapacitated (or, as in Dutch law, even the very despondent) are seen in our times as somehow less worthy of the protections we offer more active people. Ours is a culture, after all, where human worth is often measured by intellectual prowess or mercantile skills -- even by things like youth or physical beauty, or, for that matter, the capacity to convincingly impersonate a real or fictional character, or to strongly and accurately hit, kick or throw a ball.
But the true value of men and women lies elsewhere entirely, in their potential to do good things -- to prepare, in fact, for an existence beyond the one we know -- and in their meaning to the rest of us. When that idea -- self-evident to some, objectionable to others -- is internalized, a very different sensibility emerges.
Basketball or dancing may no longer be options in the confines of a hospital bed, and even tending to one's most basic physical needs may be impossible without help. But are acts of sheer will -- like forgiveness, repentance, acceptance, commitment, love, or prayer -- any harder to accomplish, or any less meaningful? Are they compromised in any way by tangles of tubes and monitors?
Not even consciousness, at least as medically defined, need hinder what humanly matters most. We choose to take only what registers on an EEG or acts of communication as evidence of being meaningfully conscious, of the ability to think and choose, and then proceed to conclude that, in the absence of such evidence, those abilities must no longer exist -- without a thought (at least a conscious one) of the immense tautology we have embraced.
We do not know, cannot know, when a human being is truly incapacitated -- when his or her soul is no longer functioning. Only when a heart has stopped beating can we be certain that life in its truest sense has ended. And so hastening or abetting the death of even a physically or psychologically compromised human being is, at least in the eyes of Judaism, no less an abortion of meaningful life than gunning down a healthy one.
The attitude regarding human life that characterizes decisions like the one Terry Schaivo's husband made is, unfortunately, one toward which much of contemporary Western culture is slouching. It is spoken of by sophisticates as "progressive," and indeed represents a progression of sorts, away from the Jewish religious tradition that is the bedrock of what we call morality and ethics. The degree to which we manage to check that progression will be the degree to which we demonstrate that we truly understand what it means to be human.
Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America and a frequent contributor to Jewsweek Magazine. This article appears courtesy of Am Echad Resources.
> there are times when even a healthy Jewish person is required by halacha to forfeit his or her life -- most famously, when preserving life would entail the performance of an act of idol-worship...
Ummm... what?
Unless I'm reading this wrong, it's suggesting that it's ok to suicide-bomb (or something similar) Jews who may be about to worship a golden calf or some such. Is my interpretation wrong here?
No, he's referring to forfeiting ones own life, as contrasted with suicide. A better example would be a criminals instruction to you to murder a third person, on pain of your own death, an order you'd be morally bound not to follow. Or compulsion to idolatry, on pain of death. Again, he's talking about forfeiting your own life, not taking others.
Thank you for clarifying that. Thank god some of the Jewish leaders can sift through all the secularism to see the truth. It amazes me that so many Jewish people side with the left, which is growing more and more anti-semetic. This outbreak is difficult to perceive, however, unless you read the subtle warning signs. Historically, Jewish people fare poorly in the end when they assimilate too deeply into the vulgar parts of the culture.
Considering that it's an excellent column, why the "Jewsweek" in the link, which has a pejorative ring?
Sorry about that: I see there really is a magazine called Jewseek, and that you weren't making a pun on Newsweek!
> why the "Jewsweek" in the link
Because that's the source. Jewsweek.com.
> which has a pejorative ring?
No more so than "Christianity Today," "Atheist Monthly" or "Islam Yesterday." "Jew" is a perfectly valid name, but anti-semitism has gotten so bad that nearly every use fo the word tends to set off alarm bells.
Apologies again.
> A better example would be a criminals instruction to you to murder a third person, on pain of your own death, an order you'd be morally bound not to follow.
Well, the column seems to indicate that murder and worshipping an idol are the same level of evil. Thing is, the Mob holds a gun to *your* head and tells you to shoot someone else, unless you're an action hero, your options are basically limited (do it or die). But worshipping a false idol... can't ya just fake it? Would God really get in a snit if you did that to save your life, but you didn't mean it *apart* from saving your life?
In many ways, your life is not wholly your own to lose... especially if you have children dependent upon you. Fake it, get out alive, and take care of the kids.
Maybe I'm just looking too deep, though.
No sweat. At first glance, it *did* look like a weird take on "newsweek." One might even wonder if Newsweek might have some sort of copyright or trademark infringement issue here... Bah. Best not to invoke lawyers.
By the way, in light of the Schiavo affair, I recently sent emails to my sisters letting them know that if a similar situation ever arises in my case, I'd like things to be done in accordance with halacha. I was so impressed by the article you posted, I sent the link to my sisters.
"Unless I'm reading this wrong, it's suggesting that it's ok to suicide-bomb (or something similar) Jews who may be about to worship a golden calf or some such. Is my interpretation wrong here?"
What it means is if someone tells you to bow down to the golden calf on pain of death, you must take death.
> I was so impressed by the article you posted
Errrrmmm.... *I* posted?
> I was so impressed by the article you posted
Errrrmmm.... *I* posted?
> if someone tells you to bow down to the golden calf on pain of death, you must take death.
Seems a little harsh.
I am mistake-prone today. Because you pointed out that the actual name of the publication was Jewsweek, I assumed you were the original poster.
Not too deep, just confronting the difference between a moral or purely secular decision. I wouldn't worry much about idol worship, then again the decision is similar when faced with a demand to betray one's allegiance to the Torah, or death.
Euthenasia: the welfare mentality taken to it's logical conclusion.
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.