quote:

Terry Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart briefly stopped beating because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. The 41-year-old Florida woman can breathe on her own but has relied on a feeding tube to keep her alive.

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovering. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in such a condition but her parents insist that she could recover with treatment.

Overnight, both chambers of Congress passed a bill in an emergency session to let parents Bob and Mary Schindler ask a federal judge to prolong their daughter's life by ordering her feeding tube reinserted.

Should one take active measures to keep a person alive? Or can a person refuse to take medical treatment?

Gila, Terri's fate a very tragic issue for all of America.

Right as we are discussing it from the comfort of our homes, she is being murdered by starvation and thirst imposed on her at the order of the judge, just because she has a cognitive disorder, while the Congress and House are adopting their bills...

Last time mentally disabled were killed for their cogntive impairments was 60 years ago across the ocean...

I don't know if what they are doing it is legal in the United States, but that judge who ordered the feeding tube removed ought to go to prison for premeditated murder.

From as little as I know about that unfortunate family's situation, her husband is trying to get out of his marriage, but for some reason divorce is not an option (?). Is it because of some legal technicality that she is unable to give him divorce? I don't believe laws in Florida do not allow a husband to receive a divorce from his wife's parents if their daughter is mentally inadequate, even if he - the husband - is the legal caretaker.

This whole situation is sickening and so un-Jewish.

One is not allowed to anything to hasten death.The classic example is that is one is not allowed to close a dying person's eyes which was thought to hasten death. However, one is not required to take every measure to prolong life if death is certain. If the tube is removed, you do not have to put it back. If you put it back, you can't remove it.
There is therefore no reason not to follow a DNR order. How to disconect someone from a machine after brain death (only cessation of breathing or heart stoppage is considered death), is a difficult problem. In practice, we use indirect stoppage of the machine, what is known as gramma.
The main reason we do not hasten the death of a dying person is that even a few seconds of life can be utilized to do repentance.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
Gila, Terri's fate a very tragic issue for all of America.

I agree. I hope I have not come across as insensitive for bringing this issue up. It just got me thinking... I feel for Terry's family, who have to fight for her right to live.

quote:

Right as we are discussing it from the comfort of our homes, she is being murdered by starvation and thirst imposed on her at the order of the judge, just because she has a cognitive disorder,

I thought that the issue was one of mercy killing? Let's say, for argument's sake, that her husband has altruistic motives and wants to end her suffering, my question is - do we have to do everything in order to prolong someone's life, even if someone is suffering terribly? (Although taking her off the feeding tube i.e. starving her to death, doesn't seem very humane to me.)

quote:

From as little as I know about that unfortunate family's situation, her husband is trying to get out of his marriage, but for some reason divorce is not an option (?).

If you believe what the media says it seems he stands to inherit a financial award that was given to her, so why should he want to divorce her?

I think it is important here to look at two issues. The first is how the issue life and death are delt with in the Writs. As Jews, we can not hasten death by any action that we take. We are NOT required to take action to SAVE a life, but we required to NOT take action that would hasten the end. This was well pointed out in the above post by Laurence Shore (thanks, Laurence). It is important to remember, however, that neither Teri, nor her husband, are Jewish and so are operating under a different set of moral rules. Caling this case "murder" and relating it to the execution of the handicapped "...60 years ago accross the ocean" (an obvious and heavy-handed attempt to reference the Shoa) is nothing short of insulting to both Teri and her family (including her husband) and to those poor souls who lost their lives during that horrific period.

The Second issue is, perhaps, the more important of the two. In writing that the Husband of Mrs. Shivo has alteriour motives, that he wants to be rid of his wife, but can ot file for divorce, to make ANY ascertion what-so-ever that Mr. Shivo is acting in any other way than in his wife's best interests is, in effect, to call him a lier, to slander (or, since this is written, to libel) him in public, which is an action EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to Jews. How dare any of us take it upon ourselves, especially with NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE WHAT-SO-EVer, to impune the integrity of another human during such a trying portion of his life? To do so is, in my humble opinion, is nothing short of un-informed and hurtful gossip. Any Jew who undertakes this course of action should be ashamed before God for his/her actions. Are we so distant from the Laws governing such things that we can not help but slander/libel a man who is facing a terrible choice? Now, to be sure, if any of us was directly involved in the case, say as a Doctor, an Attourny, or a member of the family, then our opinions could be called "informed" and greater latitude would be afforded us in our comments. But as I am not directly involved and I suspect the Alex and Laurence and Gila are not directly involved, what right do we have to attack another person's character and motives?

I am sorry to all if this posting sounds harsh, but please consider the implications of your comments and how is reflects on you, on our people and on our Laws. Let us all remember who and what we are before we allow such hurtful thing to leave our mouths.

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
If the tube is removed, you do not have to put it back.

Aryeh, I have a problem with that. Because it means that if you were being starved and denied water for a week or longer, and now are dying of thirst and starvation, no one would have to give you water and food. I don't think it's right.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alex,

dkbengel,

These are the sources of my arguments:

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Should_Terri_Schiavo_Live_or_Die$.asp

and

http://www.chabad.org/magazine/article.asp?AID=268997

I think both of these web sites post articles by people familiar with the Jewish Law.

And she was not dying until the feeding tube was removed.

BTW, all I said about her husband was,

quote:

From as little as I know about that unfortunate family's situation, her husband is trying to get out of his marriage, but for some reason divorce is not an option (?). Is it because of some legal technicality that she is unable to give him divorce? I don't believe laws in Florida do not allow a husband to receive a divorce from his wife's parents if their daughter is mentally inadequate, even if he - the husband - is the legal caretaker.

Where did I call him a liar? Where did I slander him? I think you should be just as careful about what you say about other people as I should be; as we all should be.

When you say,

quote:

It is important to remember, however, that neither Teri, nor her husband, are Jewish and so are operating under a different set of moral rules.

This is a direct road to quoting Der Alter Rebe (Schneur Zalman) that Neshamah (the G-dly soul) is an exclusively Jewish feature; of all nations of the world only Jews have it. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that if you make this assumption, then you would not have to treat any non-Jews as humans.

She is a human being and deserves to be treated as such; "even" if she is not a Jew.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alex,

Gila,

quote:

I thought that the issue was one of mercy killing? Let's say, for argument's sake, that her husband has altruistic motives and wants to end her suffering, my question is - do we have to do everything in order to prolong someone's life, even if someone is suffering terribly? (Although taking her off the feeding tube i.e. starving her to death, doesn't seem very humane to me.)

We do not know if she was suffering until the removal of the feeding tube. And mercy killing is still killing. And she is obviously not terminally ill if she's been living for 15 years in this condition. So, I don't think it would even qualify as a mercy killing. Dr. Kevorkian was doing mercy killing by ending the lives of hopeless cancer patients in the final phases of their diseases, when it was a matter of enormous suffering for the patient or cutting off life support. Yet he was tried in court and found guilty.

Euthanasia is forbidden; is it not?

Alex, you miss my point completely. I was not implying that Teri or her husband were anything other than God's children, but you can not expect them to follow the Laws and beliefs of our people since they do not share those beliefs. This is obviously true. Where you make you claim that my reasoning is a "straight line" to trouble, I would say that you are easily over-stating my words and their effect (as I believe you overstated the implications of this case by invoking the memory of the Shoa).

To respond to you question, I did not say that you called him a liar (please read my post again). In fact, the only times I referenced you in my post was in respect to the "murder" quotaion & your reference to the Shoa and when I listed ALL of the posters for this page at the bottom of my note. But since you brought it up, I stated that when we say that something is not as it is presented, we, "in effect" call that person a liar and that is libel/slander. You claim in you post that you feel the husband wants out of the marriage but can't get a divorce while Mr Shivo has said on numerous occassions that he does not wish to divorce his wife and that he is acting out of concern for her wishes. Your post and the words of Mr Shivo are directly in contrast. There-for, you must admit, you are saying that you do not believe that Mr Shivo is speaking the truth. This is the point of my argument.

I do not in my post praise or decry the Laws regarding Life and/or Death, only do I wish to make sure that we are respectful in our tones regarding those are dealing with issues that we ourselves are not facing. I hear too many people looking for alteriour motives for Mr Shivo's actions, "in effect" calling his stated purpose for his actions a lie. This is shameful for any Jew. Who are we to suggest that Mr Shivo is acting in anything other than what he percieves as his wife's best interests? Are we his judge? I think not. He has made it perfectly clear over the years that Teri had said she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means. Who are we to say that he is not telling the truth? Yet, you post makes the suggestion that, since he can not get a divorce (which we know is untrue) that Mr Shivo is "trying to get out" of the marriage by killing his wife. If this is not your meaning, then please clearify. But if it is, then SHAME be upon you for your hurtful words. I pray that the former is true and that I have mis-understood your writings.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dkbengel,

dkbengel,

quote:

Yet, you post makes the suggestion that, since he can not get a divorce (which we know is untrue) that Mr Shivo is "trying to get out" of the marriage by killing his wife. If this is not your meaning, then please clearify.

You are jumping to conclusions, my friend, and hurting me. I only said that he is trying to get out of his marriage; I did not imply that he wants, or attempts, to kill her as an inconvenience. That's what her parents said, BTW. Mr. Schiavo may have the best motives in the world, for all I know. That doesn't matter. You said that since they are non-Jews, moral rules applicable to Jews are not applicable to the Schiavos. Moral rules are the same for all humans, but there are tougher restrictions and extra rules for Jews. What is disgusting to a Jew is just as disgusting to a non-Jew. Christians, BTW, too, have the "Thou shalt not murder". Suicide and coupe-de-grace is not allowed in Christianity either. Even the Pope's office said something about that this week.

You said,

quote:

I would say that you are easily over-stating my words and their effect

Not more than you overstated my words about Mr. Schiavo.

quote:

(as I believe you overstated the implications of this case by invoking the memory of the Shoa).

Regarding the Shoah. This case sets a precedent that a judge may order a slow death by starvation to a mentally disabled person whose only fault is that she has her disability. This is exactly what was done , only en masse, in Germany in the 1930s. But if you allow one precedent, then what's there to keep you from allowing a million?

I just found this on the news today:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050323/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_57

quote:

...10 demonstrators outside Schiavo's hospice were arrested trying to bring her water — including a 10-year-old boy.

I salute that little kid with a big heart. Whatever religious denomination he is, he is a Mentsch.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alex,

1. If it was a terminally ill patient, one would not put back in the tube.
2. One usually can not survive more than three days without water. If they are saying three weeks to the termination, they must be giving fluids.
3. Witholding nutrients from a terminally ill patients is not unusual and it is not painful for a comatose person. (It was a method of loosing weight to put people in a deep sleep for a week or too. Never heard anyone complain about discomfort.)
4. Lahon harah about non-jews does not come under the halachic category of lashon harah. However one should avoid lashon harah so one does not get in the habit of it and if said to a non-jew it may be hillul hashem.
5. There is no basis in jewish law for terminating someone because of cognitive disfunction.
6. We are not required to inform non-jews of their obligations under the torah. Lifnei ever applies to situations where you do something in your own hand. We can go into examples if someone is interested.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
dkbengel,

This is a direct road to quoting Der Alter Rebe (Schneur Zalman) that Neshamah (the G-dly soul) is an exclusively Jewish feature; of all nations of the world only Jews have it. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that if you make this assumption, then you would not have to treat any non-Jews as humans.

She is a human being and deserves to be treated as such; "even" if she is not a Jew.

Alex,

To say that the assertion that non-Jews are not bound by Jewish law implies in any way that non-Jews don't have souls is terribly ill-informed. Jews are bound by to the 613 mitzvot, and to halachahic extensions of those mitzvot. Non jews have only the 7 Noachide obligations.

Stating that non-Jews operate under different moral rules is a statement of fact - I can't see how there should be any controversy over it.

Warmest Regards,
Yosef

Dear Yosef,

Please understand my position. We are not talking about cannibals from the Solomon Islands. They are not Jews, but they are Christians, and compassion and moral behavior is something they are supposed to have at least as much as we are supposed to. "Thou shalt not murder" is as much a Christian commandment as it is Jewish (yes, it is plagiarized by the New Testament from Torah, but that's beside the point.)

Our ethics, having originated at Mount Sinai, has now grown to be the ethics followed by most nations and religions of the world.

And the law against murder is number 3 in Noachide laws (http://www.noahide.com/7laws.htm and http://www.noahide.com/murder.htm):

quote:

G-d created man in His image in order for us to accomplish His divine purpose in the world and spiritually connect to Him. Therefore, human life is very sacred, and its protection is far more important than anything else to be accomplished. Thus G-d gave us the mitzvah prohibiting murder in order to preserve human life and its value.

One who takes the life of another or of himself, even though he may justify it in his mind, is guilty of a most brutal and spiritually destructive act. On the other hand, one who works to save or improve the lives of others is accomplishing a very positive and beneficial mitzvah. The optimum condition of human life is when people cooperate and work together for good, revealing the G-dliness inherent in the world.

Alex

Dear people,
I don't know how we got into metaphysics, but goes something like this.
Animals have nefesh. Human beings have neshamah as well as adam was made in zelem elokim. The jews at har sinai got a extra spark which put them on a higher level of kedushah. This enables them, among other things, to contemplate the celestial spheres and to unite with the divinity. Gerim are a problem for this scheme since they weren't at sinai. One solution is that the gerim today were just jews which got lost over the centuries (should be about 30 million jews today).
We have no dogma and no one poskins metaphysics, including Rebbes. Note that no one decides which conflicting midrashim are correct. Unlike the halacha, we do not restrict opinions to a definitive form.
The laws of avodah zara and the laws dealing with not helping followers of avoda zarah, is a different category. Islam and protestinism, especially unitarians, appeared after the time of the halachic discussions of the talmud. Most authorities today hold they are not avodah zara and we have to extend them the same courtesy as ourselves, e.g. one is permitted to give gifts of friendship to non-jews. When really needed, we say that there is no avodah zara in the world today and the people who appear to be doing avodah zara don't really mean it like the Cananites did.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

If the tube is removed, you do not have to put it back. If you put it back, you can't remove it.

How can it be permitted to withold food and drink? One is obligated to feed an animal, surely a human being would get equal consideration?

Dkbengel, you are right that we have no first-hand knowledge and cannot judge people. I guess I am just outraged that the courts are allowing a human being to be starved to death.

Alex, thank you for posting the links, they were very informative.

quote:

Euthanasia is forbidden; is it not?

So on what grounds are the courts allowing her to be killed?

quote:

Originally posted by Gila:

quote:

If the tube is removed, you do not have to put it back. If you put it back, you can't remove it.

How can it be permitted to withold food and drink? One is obligated to feed an animal, surely a human being would get equal consideration?

1. you are required to feed your own animal, not all of the animals in existance.
2. you can starve an animal if it good for it (best not to feed your fish one day a week) or if it needs to be killed for halachic reasons. Same goes for a man.
3. As mentioned the laws of cruelity to animals do not necessarily apply to man, since man can decide if he wishes to suffer or not, e.g. one could not take on voluntary fasts and beat oneselves for repentance if the laws of cruelity to animals applied to people.
4. People in terminal comas die from lack of food and water. They have since the beginning of humanity. Intravenous or intragastric intervention is a medical procedure not covered in the Shulchan Aruch. One does not have to subject someone to a futile procedure, i.e. he will die in any event. However, if one did intervene, one can not do anything active to hasten death.
5. Today nearly everyone dies in a hospital with some medical intervention. Physicians have to make the decision whether any further procedure will benefit the patient or just prolong their suffering. All states in the Union now have laws recognizing living wills. In many cases where there is a borderline decision as what medical procedure to use, the hospital will request a court order in order to protect the hospital. Rav Fienstein was involved in a well documented case, in which a court order was obtained, to terminate the life of one twin to save the other.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by Gila:
Alex, thank you for posting the links, they were very informative.

quote:

Euthanasia is forbidden; is it not?

So on what grounds are the courts allowing her to be killed?

Active euthanasia is unacceptable in US law. Passive euthanasia is acceptable in US law (and Jewish law). Where one starts and one begins is the reason the courts make a decision.
The problem in this case for jewish law would be that the treatment was not futile. The patient was not terminal.
They are allowing her to die. They are not killing anyone. This is an important legal debate which has to be discussed by the public and their representatives. Using "hot" words like murder is not helpful. Physcians are honest people and have to make these decisions everyday, especially in the world of Medicare and HMOs. All hospitals have ethics committees. It is not helpful to accuse them of unethical behaviour.

Modern medicine has done nothing to improve the mortality rate. It is still 100%.

A.S.

Gila,

quote:

So on what grounds are the courts allowing her to be killed?

I'm afraid it is worse than that. The Judge ordered her killed by starvation. That is active euthanasia. If the tube had never been inserted, and she had been allowed to die on her own, it would have been OK. But ordering the tube removed is equivalent to killing her. That a judge did that makes it even more disgusting.