Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:
Case
The Los Angeles Times reported that when a suspected drunk driver hit a disabled car that plowed into four people standing on the roadside, Jadine Russell, a 55-year-old mother of five and a devout Jehovah’s Witness, was injured. She died several hours later after refusing a blood transfusion that might have saved her life. “No blood!” she stated at least ten times to rescue workers and emergency-room physicians. She was so adamant in her beliefs that she even roused herself from unconsciousness and tried to pull out an intravenous line. In a trial that began Wednesday, jurors are being asked to decide if convicted drunk driver Keith Cook was soley responsible for Russell’s death and therefore guilty of murder, or if the woman’s religious beliefs brought about her demise. “This is a fascinating case,” said Lauire Levenson, associate dean at Loyola Law School. “Did the defendant kill her, or did she kill herself?”
Should a Jewish doctor have to listen to Jadine Russell’s request and not give her a blood transfusion, or should that doctor follow Jewish values and “choose life”?
Answer
[a] The heart of this question is the relationship between personal autonomy (individual freedom) and religious values (God says you should do this). Rabbi Zev Schostak, in his article, “Is There Patient Autonomy in Halacha?” (Jewish Medical Ethics, Vol.II, No.2, May 1995), teaches that the right for a patient to decide what is done to her or to his body is a major foundation of medical ethics. Yet at the same time there are other important considerations.
[b] In Jewish law, protecting life is more important than personal freedom. “Although there are those who wish it to be so, self-determination is not universally recognized as the paramount human value, [the sanctity of life] as an absolute value overrides considerations of personal freedom.” (Bleich, J.D. The Moral Obligations of the Physician In Rabbinic Tradition). While a patient’s right to decide his or her treatment exists in Jewish law, refusing a blood transfusion would not be included within this right.
[c] It seems that the key verse that gives the physician the obligation to put forth her or his best efforts is the verse in Leviticus that tells us “Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow, I am the Lord” (19:16). This prohibition gives us the commandment that we cannot stand idly by while someone is dying; we must do what we can to save him or her. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a)
[d] Rabbi Moshe Tendler and Fred Rosner, M.D., address the very question of Jehovah’s Witnesses in their book Practical Medical Halacha. They first advise the Jewish doctor not to take the patient. If the doctor does accept the patient, “the physician should assure the patient in advance that if at all possible he will use blood substitutes.” (p. 164) Yet, although the wishes of a patient are of great importance, they are secondary to the will of God and Rabbi Tendler says that, if a transfusion is the only thing that will save the person, it must be administered.
[e] The only other consideration is the legal ramification of such an action. Going against a patient’s wishes could result in professional discipline. Although a deeper legal discussion is necessary, it seems that there are plenty of other doctors in the world and saving a life, as the Tur quotes at the end of its explanation of the principle of Lo Ta’amod al Dam Re’echa (do not stand idly by while someone is dying), is like enabling a whole world to exist. (Tur, Choshen Mishpat, 426)
Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 3”, pgs. 63–65
Used with permission from Joel Grishaver
