Is there any Jewish law concerning what is

[leftynyc]

going on with Ms. Schiavo? I see religion is getting a lot of play on this issue and have no idea what Jewish law calls for. Anyone??

[IndianaGreen]

1. You can break any law in order to save a life

That's what I was taught by rabbis and my parents.

Rabbi Marc Gellman is no religious fundie, and even he found the Schiavo case to be disquieting. I share his concerns!

Catching the Moon
Our columnist looks at the spiritual and moral issues surrounding the Schiavo caseWEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marc Gellman
Newsweek

In many right-to-die cases, the patient is on life-support systems, so all that needs to be done to allow them to die is to remove these medical obstacles to death. However, in this case Terri Schiavo is not on any life support systems. In this case, in order to live she only requires hydration and nutrition; and it is a big stretch for many people to label food and water extraordinary means. It is one thing to let a person die in peace who is already dying. It is one thing to remove an obstacle to death. It is quite another to cause death. When you add in her parents' willingness to assume the financial and emotional burden of her care, the insistence of her husband that he be given the right to starve his wife to death just seems insanely ghoulish to many people who are otherwise in favor of a person's right to die. Death, they argue—and I agree—is not always an insult or a betrayal. Death can be a natural and welcome release from pain and suffering. We now face the frightening possibility of modern medicine, motivated more by a defensive fear of lawsuits than the Hippocratic oath of “first do no harm,” stopping us from crossing over when it is our time. But this obviously is not Terri Schiavo's time. She is alive, innocent and mute. She is not at death's door. All this sound and fury is about cruelly bringing the door to her.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7259993/site/newsweek/

[leftynyc]

3. I'm very much in agreement with your uneasiness

My instinct is to let her husband and legal guardian make these decisions. I know that what congress did was an outrageous assault on separation of powers but removing a feeding tube is not the same as shutting off a respirator. I'm very torn about this case on a personal level but believe the courts have done their job well in interpreting the law.

[Ellen Forradalom]

7. I am not quite as uneasy.

While Judaism has the deepest regard for life, making the protection of life one the highest motivators of its laws, I have not known it to make a bizarre fetish of it life for its own sake.

I am not convinced that removing Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube constitutes an act of "bringing death closer," or that that should be the only way of looking at the question. However, of more importance to those of us who aren't Mrs. Schiavo's husband or parents is the repulsive invasion of the family's sovereignty over its affairs, and all for cheap political gain. Let Mr. Schiavo, the Schindlers, and the courts settle it, and leave the rest of us out of it. It is not our business.

[IndianaGreen]

8. There is a clear need to change the laws to protect life

The first place to start is in removing the automatic exclusivity that spouses get in deciding cases such as in the Schiavo case. There have been far too many instances of abused women being put in a vegetative state by their spouses. It would be a travesty to have the abuser eliminate all evidence of their abuse.

Ask yourselves, why does Michael Schiavo want to cremate Terri immediately after she dies, and then bury her ashes in Pennsylvania? Why does Michael Schiavo want to avoid an autopsy?

As to Judge Greer, the voters of Florida will decide his fate when he runs for reelection.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Expediency?

Why does he want to avoid autopsy? I don't think that is what it is. It sounds to me that he just wants to move on, and after death, comes burial or cremation. My understanding is that abuse allegations were made and none were ever proved. They have had 15 years to prove abuse, and nothing has shown up.

There are laws in place that protect spouses from abusers, even if they end up in the hospital. If abuse is found, then a new guardian is selected or appointed. This has not been the case here. Therefore, it is nothing more than speculation as to why he wants cremation. Could it be another wish that others do not know about because this sudden illness took them both by surprise and they had no time to record their wishes?

[IndianaGreen]

10. Just as the Orthodox don't believe in autopsy

I believe that the traditional Catholic Church position is to frown on cremation. Once again, what is Michael Schiavo trying to hide?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. What if he is hiding nothing?

Why does his desire to have the process moved along imply he is hiding something?

I have no idea if the Catholic Church frowns on cremation, I know Judaism does, but that will not stop me from cremating my mother when the time comes! HER wishes supersede ANY others! Perhaps cremation is another "privately discussed" wish between Terri and her CHOSEN mate?

[IndianaGreen]

12. The State of Florida should get an autopsy before hubby cremates Terri

Are you now saying that this is another of those "privately discussed" topics betweeen Terri and Michael? That's kind of a stretch, isn't it?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Perhaps

But isn't it a stretch to think he has something to hide after 15 years?! Allegations were made, nothing panned out. So, why would he now be afraid? In his care for her, he has not shown malice, so why, all of the sudden, think their is something nefarious afoot?

[Ellen Forradalom]

15. It's a technique from the talk-radio manual of rhetoric

to toss out several unconnected allegations about Mr. Schiavo, then state that the allegations demonstrate that he is hiding something. I draw no such conclusion, nor are the allegations strong enough to create doubt.

As far as spouses deciding in such cases, well, I think the basis for that is found in the Torah, in Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

None of our family relationships is perfect, and ideally such a decision would be reached by consensus, but someone has to have sign-off power at some point. Should we remain our parent's wards into adulthood? After they die, then who? This is one of the reasons we have life partners.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Recognizing that marriage is a contract

Did Michael Schiavo violate that contract when he took a common law wife and had children with her? And if he did violate the contract, should he be still the surrogate decision maker for Terri when there is a dispute with Terri's family and there is no Living Will and/or Durable Power of Attorney?

One last thing, what "good deed" is there in Michael Schiavo cremating Terri and shipping her ashes to be interred in Pennsylvania?

[Ellen Forradalom]

17. Where is it written he must be martyr?

Are concern for Terri's well-being and living his life with a sentient partner mutually exclusive?

Ah, the leading question again. Perhaps it's simply a neutral deed, as most funeral arrangements are?

[Misskittycat]

14. I like Rabbi Gelman, but sometimes don't agree with him.

This is one of those occasions where I disagree with him.

[tishaLA]

2. I talked about this with my rabbi

when I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure at a young age. I had made the determination, at least provisionally, that I would not want to have a heart transplant, which was a real possibility at the time of my diagnosis, and that I would not want to have any heroic measures to keep me alive (as if the transplant idea didn't make that clear enough!).

Judaism is really all over the board on this, so there is no easy answer as there is in some other faiths. For example, my rabbi has consistently talked about the Jewish belief that life begins at birth and not conception, which makes the question of abortion quite simple indeed. In issues of "right to die," she told me that a person has the autonomy to make health care decisions and that he or she must do so in a prudent manner. Jewish law does not require the preservation of life in all instances and, in fact, when someone is terminally ill and suffering, Judaism does not require treatments to prolong life. Jewish law approaches the preservation of life as a moral obligation, but recognizes that there are times, particularly when a patient is terminally ill, when intervention should not be performed.

To my mind, in the case of Schiavo (from the information I have gleaned) there is no requirement to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive; indeed, it might be considered a mitzvah to terminate treatment because it demonstrates a greater commitment to the general ethos of Judaism than remaining in a persistent vegetative state.

[leftynyc]

4. When you say the Judaism is all over the board on this

I know exactly what you mean. I took this question to a cousin of mine who sits on the board of her temple and she was stumped. She said you could take 10 people and get at least 10 different opinions on Jewish law. She was going to email her rabbi and let me know what he says.

[SharonRB]

5. You know it's impossible to have an issue that doesn't have

more than one opinion in Judaism. There are very few things that are clear cut in all instances. As they say, get three Jews in a room and you'll get ten opinions (or something like that!).

Everything is open to interpretation, which is part of what makes Judaism so wonderful. It can be customized, up to a point, to fit ones own beliefs and depending on whether you are Orthodox, Conservative or Reform.

[leftynyc]

6. I also consider it one of the beautiful things about Judaism

Very, very few things are black and white. I'm still waiting to hear from my cousins rabbi - it will be a Conservative view.