Here’s another ethical issue and Jewish source response:
Case
Bennie, a twelve-year-old in Florida, had a kidney transplant. His body begins to reject the kidney, so the doctors dramatically increase the dosage of the anti-rejection medicine. The medicine makes the boy sleepy. It blurs his vision. It makes it hard for him to concentrate. He can’t really read, watch television or play video games. Even visiting with friends is hard, because his eyes become very light sensitive. He and his mother decide he should go off the medicine and take his chances. He says, “Living this way is not living.” The doctors call it “suicide” and “parental abandonment of responsibility.” Bennie and his mother argue that it is his life. The doctors go to court. The court orders the family to continue medical treatment. Can a twelve-year-old (with his mother’s permission) make a decision to reject the medical treatment that will keep him alive? Should he?
Answer
[a] When Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi was dying the rabbis ruled that everyone must fast and pray for God’s mercy. They also made it a rule that anyone who said “The rabbi is already dead” would be put to death as a murderer. Then the rabbi’s servant woman went onto the roof of his house and prayed, “The angels and people are at war. The angels are praying for the rabbi to come and join them. The people are praying for the rabbi to remain with them. Prayers are fighting prayers. God, may it be Your will that the human prayers defeat the angels’ wishes.”
Later, when the servant woman saw how much the rabbi was suffering, she prayed again. This time she said, “May it be Your will, God, that the angels win.” Rabbi suffered more and more but stayed alive. The servant woman picked up a jar and threw it off the roof. It hit the ground and made a big smashing sound. The rabbis stopped praying for just an instant. In that instant the soul of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi departed for its eternal rest (Ketuvot 104a).
[b] Rabbinic thinking leans to the view that the patient should undergo a procedure if the choice exists. Nevertheless, he may exercise the option to do nothing.
A central factor to be considered is the track record of the treatment. The less sure the doctors are of the possible cure, the greater is the patient’s prerogative to not have the procedure. In those cases where the doctors are not confident of the outcome, one can choose to live whatever amount of time he has left and not take a chance on losing even that short time, or he can take a chance that he will lose everything – but might gain a lot.
Rav Moshe Feinstein has taught a number of times in his responsa that a patient has a right to refuse treatment and that a person is not required to undergo treatment that will cure his illness but force him a life of pain. He teaches that the decision is really in the hands of the patient, who is entitled to know all the options and make his own decision.
Even against the patient’s express will, however, he must be provided food and oxygen. However, we must act upon a request for a stopping of further medical treatment, even if this will bring a quicker death (Rabbi Alfred Cohen).
Jewish medical ethics would encourage Bennie to go back to his treatment but accept his decision to refuse the medication.
Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge”, pgs. 70-72
Used with permission from Joel Grishaver
