http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html

What you call Zev’s morality is what twenty years ago would have been everyone’s morality, irregardless of halachah. There was a time when every decent person understood that starving a living person to death is murder. You’re probably right when you say that public opinion has changed. But morality is not a matter of public opinion. 70% of Americans (if this statistic is correct, which I doubt) cannot change an act of murder into a righteous act, the best efforts of professional “bio-ethicists” notwithstanding.

As far as the other examples, I am noting that the definition of what is moral and what isn’t moral is not always clear cut. And, if you are consistant in your beliefs, your opinion on this case will/should have implications for what you would opine in other cases. Thinking about the whole issue, and not just this one case, may give you more of a perspective.

I’m not sure what you want with the death penalty. The halachic requirements of hasra’ah and eidim do not apply to the arkaos of b’nei noach, so what’s your point? The other examples you cite, I’m certainly against them too. I am not required to list my opinions on all related matters before being permitted to opine on this one.

And what would be your opinion if a healthy person gave permission to another person to kill them? I believe that the killer would be guilty of murder, both morally and, I’m sure, under the law. All your talk about halachah and Christianity is a red herring; the plain fact is that this act, whether allowed by the law or the judges or whoever, is nothing short of an act of murder, and all your justifications do nothing to change this.

As a lawyer, I have won and lost cases based on the concept of the statute of frauds, that without a writing, many agreements are not considered by courts. If the lack of a writing can apply in that situation, it certainly should apply when a patient has not expressed his or her wishes on medical matters.

zev — I think there is much more of a chance that your Christian right friends that you are hooking up with are going to impose their beliefs on us and our children, than any chance that misguided “liberals” are going to impose thier views of quality of life on us without our permission. It depends on which way you want to err in your society. You can err on the side of too much freedom, or too much secularism, and wind up like the French, banning kippot and religious observance in school, or you can err on too much religion and values being imposed(and despite what you might want or think you can achieve, they are not going to be Jewish values, they are going to be Christian values) and wind up with more of a theocratic state, with prayers to Jesus and more outward trappings of religion, not to mention the more extreme versions of christian states(anyone remember the inquisition?). I would prefer to err, within reason on the side of more freedom, and less christianity.

The law is clear that if you withhold food and water from a patient - even one in a vegetative state - who has not consented, it is indeed murder. If you, Dilbert, as a doctor, would unilaterally take out someone’s in Terri Schiavo’s condition, you’d be charged with 1st degree murder.

We can agree on the halacha, and that a patient has the right to request that food and water be withheld. The issue here is whether Schiavo clearly indicated that she would not want to remain alive in this condition. I think this is an unresolved factual question, and therefore the feeding tube should not have been removed.

You’re complaining against the wrong people! This is not a case of
activist judges. … No, this is a case where the judges are simply
interpreting Florda law.

See this page for a list of Florida statutes which have been ignored or violated by the Florida judges. Some of them are quite obvious, e.g., Title XLIII, 744.3215(1)(a) required a guardianship of an incapacitiated person to be reviewed annually, and for the guardian to file an annual report and plan of action. Michael Schiavo has not filed such reports for many years, the courts have not asked him to, and the last time he did submit such a report, under “plan of action” he wrote “NONE.”

In addition, 744.3215(1)(i) requires that an incapacitated person receive rehabilitation services — which were denied starting 6 years before Michael first sought an order to remove feeding and hydration.

Futhermore, if they really took the Florida statutes seriously, Michael would be prosecuted for violating Title XLVI, 798.01, which declares that, “Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.” Such a finding or conviction would no doubt impugn Michael’s claim to have his legal wife’s best interests at heart and thus his right to be her legal guardian. The fact that he has publicly announced his intent to marry another women, with whom he is already living and has two children, should be enough to show that he has interests contrary to hers, which has consequences under Florida statutes that have never been enforced.

Sholom is quite right, of course, that the case of Sun Hudson should have gotten more attention. I would certainly have supported federal intervention in that case as well. However, the fact that one person has already been murdered under color of law does not mean we should not exert efforts to protect another person from being so murdered as well.

For more information on Sun Hudson, a 6-month-old baby who was disconnected from a respirator over the objections of his parents and at the behest of a hospital ethics board, see the story in the Houston Chronicle, and if you wish, my comments and those of Clayton Cramer.

For those of you such as “dilbert” and “MP” who think that the relevant issue is that halacha is not American law, be aware that there is certainly nothing to stop the precedents in these cases from being applied to Jews, including Orthodox Jews. Living wills and advanced directives are not sufficient in the face of hospital “ethics” committees with values diametrically opposed to ours. Sun Hudson was 6-month-old who obviously never had a chance to write an advanced directive — and his parents’ wishes were over-ridden by the hospital “ethics” committee. His parents didn’t have the money to raise a strenuous legal challenge or a publicity challenge like the Schindlers did, so he died without fanfare. I doubt Tom DeLay ever heard of Sun Hudson until it was too late, even though it happened in DeLay’s home city. I certainly never heard of him until after he died, and I follow these issues as closely as I can.

We have a situation in which the medical profession and the “bioethics” “profession” are seeking to impose their values on everyone else through the courts, and they are largely succeeding. See, for example, the article in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the Groningen Protocol for euthanizing newborns and claiming that similar practices are already in place in the United States. The New York Times recently ran a puff piece on the developer of the Groningen Protocol, and the Los Angeles Times ran an article by “bioethicist” Peter Singer (who is Jewish and the son of Holocaust survivors) proclaiming that passive infanticide is widely accepted in the U.S. and defending the expansion of the practice to include active infanticide even of non-terminal newborns who could live a productive live. See also this article by Wesley J. Smith, and my comments.

Count me in as empathetic to Rabbi Adlerstein’s overall point. There is a widening gap in America between its civil law & societal mores and the ideals of its founding fathers, never mind of sheva mitzvos b’nai Noach, and I agree that silence in the face of specific situations which exemplify such a gap is akin to agreement with the tenor of those situations.

Last, count me in as seconding comment#4. Get your affairs in as much order as possible — the best of arrangements may still not be sufficient, but you do have to try your best. If you’re a Torah-true Jew and you haven’t appointed a health-care representative to fight on your behalf if you’re unable to make decisions for yourself in a medical emergency, please see Ira Kasdan’s Jewish Law - Halachic Forms page. Thanks…and a Gut Purim to all!

Even if the court erred in the Schiavo case, to have the legislatures involved in this way sets a very bad precedent. What other emotionally charged family controversies will end up dissected, case by case, on the floor of the United States Senate? If, God forbid, I die and one of my relatives is upset at how my will is interpreted, will Congress step in to substitute its judgement for the decision of the probate judge? Where will this end?

Medical ethics controversies need to be decided by the Aguda, the RCA, or the Beit Din of America? Do you want to change the law that allows people to decide their own health care? that they can refuse food and water? I agree 100% that removing food/water from a person is contrary to Halacha. However, does Halacha mandate that you protest not inserting a feeding tube into a woman that is comatose, who by legally recognized accounts would not have wanted to be preserved in that situation? Of course you can make it look like murder if you phrase it in terms of withholding food/water from a person. But if you think of it in terms of not aggressively treating someone, it starts to look less and less like murder. Maybe to make you happy they should put a tray of food at her bedside, that way she could eat if she wanted to.(I know this appears to be an insensitive remark, but it is only intended to show that the issue is a lot more complex than simple statements like “murdering a person through starvation is ok”)

Please stop attacking the judges (the intital judge, btw, is a conservative republican Southern Baptist). He is only applying the law as written. The law is as plain as day in this case. The “leglislation imposed on us” (as you write), was leglislated by the (GOP controlled) Florida Senate. And, indeed, they had a chance to change the law yesterday — and didn’t. Don’t blame this on the judges.

If you really want to understand the legal issues, check out this page.

(And besides, the intervention of Congress is also law, and no less legitimate than the anti-democratic “legislation” imposed upon us at the whim of amoral judges.)

No, this is a case where the judges are simply interpreting Florda law. That’s why 15 courts and over 30 judges (or perhaps it was 30 court cases and 15 judges) have all ruled the same way.

Your ire should be directed at the Florida legislature. And it should be noted that the Flordai Senate, just yesterday, rejected a change in the law.

In fact, it’s even worse in Texas. There, a medical panel can remove life support from a patient, even if it is against the wishes of *all* tha parties. In fact, a poor 6 month old was just disconnected this week to little fanfare, against the wishes of his parents. (Where was everybody on that one?. Why was there no ad hoc federal legislation to save the life of young Sun Hudson? If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go to news.google, and look up “Sun Hudson”, the name of the six month old).

With all due respect, R Adlerstein, direct your ire at the appropriate parties, here.

So, when you view this issue as the natural outcome of the combination of patient autonomy and freedom of choice(to refuse medical care, with food/water defined as medical care), and the usual list of surrogate decision making, removing the tube is a valid legal choice. However, when viewed as ending the life of a woman in a persistant coma(yes, from the most valid medical evidence she is in a persistant vegetative state), especially when people are raising questions if she indeed is in a coma, now it becomes an issue of value of life and ending the life of a disabled person. If one is not happy with how the law works, then one should work to change the law. Having massive interventions by governors, congress and presidents in one person’s case, just because they dont like the results of the laws of the country is a perversion of justice.

Not that it is indicative of liberalism/conservatism but the 3 judge panel from the 11th circuit that initially heard the case was made up of 2 Clinton appointees and 1 Bush (41) appointee. The decision was 2-1. The dissenter was a Clinton appointee.

Second, the state circuit judge that has been overseeing the case is a conservative republican (who was re-elected while deciding this case and has, I believe, 4 years to serve on his term)

Third, it would appear that the “strict” reading being given by the courts of the 11th circuit and Middle District of Florida would be more of a “conservative”/”constructionalist” argument.

Just to show that its not just an issue of liberal/conservative or activist/constructionalist judges.