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
Although I agree with your comment in #20, I think that passive euthanasia is not what happenened with Pope JPII. His was a natural death, not forced.
I think the where the above article becomes ambiguous is that it defines "passive" euthanasia in a way that does not mean euthanasia at all. Euthanasia is forced exit from this world.
Where I caution all people to be careful about this issue is when you see the article come out and say that this new legislation doesn't go far enough. It is suggested that it's insufficient because it doesn't give the okay to remove "life-support" from non-terminallly ill patients, such as those in "permanent" vegetative states.
IMO, euthanasia is another tool of the devil to get man to distrust God and His Wisdom. I hope the people of Israel will continue to keep this issue in prayer. I hope they do not fall to the same tricks as we have gotten ourselves into here in America.
P.S.- I love your FReep page!
If what happened to Terri Schiavo isn't enough warning for us all, then I don't know what else would be.
*************
I agree.
She was tortured to death for all the world to see, and yet some still refuse to see (or pretend not to.) They show up on nearly every euthanasia thread, advocating the extermination of disabled people. They attempt to blur the line between disabled and dead, the line between the right to live and the right to kill, and most importantly the line between right and wrong. I pity them for the rotting of their souls, and pray that they fail to lead others into darkness.
DNR, "Do not resuscitate" often becomes "Do not treat"
I'll join you in that prayer.
That's one reason why we want my father here at home. As explicit as you can be about what kind of care you want for your loved one, you never know unless you're right there keeping your eye on things.
The National Right to Life Committee has put out an excellent model document called the "Will to Live." My mother-in-law used it as a basis for her own advance directives, PLUS (this is important) she had a serious talk with all her children discussing and explaining exactly what she would want under different circumstances.
http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/
Go there, do that.
We've been on a slippery slope for decades (at least since Roe vs Wade told us that human life per se is no big deal) --- and since Terri Schiavo was murdered, we're on a logical 4-lane superhighway to hell.
However, this Knesset legislation is not, I think, part of the slippery slope. From what I understand from the article, I think it's actually a good piece of legislation.
This is because people have a right --- NOT "to kill themselves," NOT "to commit suicide," --- but a right to refuse burdensome treatment. A person has a right to refuse a ventilator. Or to have a ventilator removed.
This is quite different from the Schiavo case, where there was a clear intent to cause her death by starvation - dehydration. It is very legitimate for a dying person to want to be comfortable. A ventilator can be very uncomfortable. If it's removed, you might die but you might not. By contrast:
It is perfectly legitimate for a person to choose "ordinary care" or "palliative care" only, which would mean being kept fed and hydrated, clean, comfortable, with adequate pain relief (self-administered liquid morphine is wonderful) and the company of your loved ones.
A dying person on a ventilator cannot speak. Cannot --- I address a Catholic issue here --- receive Holy Communion. And the patient may want to have the opportunity to receive the Sacraments and say a few words to his or her loved ones.
That would certainly justify removing the ventilator. Not to remove it, when the patient clearly wanted it removed, would be, I think, a serious abuse.
**************
Your argument is sound, I admit. However, and perhaps I am alone in this, I see the slippery slope not in the Schiavo case, but in all that preceded it. Each admittedly small and seemingly insignificant step toward a lack of wonder and respect for life.
The same man who wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." also wrote: "When I consider that God is just, I tremble for my country."
That's it.
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.