well known Mishnah in Ohalot may be of some slight use. It dealt with a woman, who faced enormous difficulty in giving birth to a child. The physician had to make a decision between saving the woman or allowing the child to be born. The Mishnah indicated that the woman's life was to be saved and the fetus may be dismembered. That was true until the head of the child emerged, then it was considered a person and one could not choose the life of one individual over another. The decision was then left to the physician.” Here again we have a statement that both lives are equal unless one has not yet attained the status of a person.
These statements have shown us that a life must be saved and it is our duty to do so, but they do not help us to decide which life to save. These statements are of less use when we are asked to guide legislation and are not dealing with single individuals for whom a decision must be made. Liberal Jewish discussions of this question must begin. In our discussion the larger public good and the Jewish view toward it must be carefully considered. It should be our task to enter this discussion and help to establish appropriate guidelines.
END-STAGE EUTHANASIA
Jewish tradition continues to oppose euthanasia in all instances except the final stage of life. When a person has reached this stage and is suffering, we may consider that individual minimally as a goses, but actually need to go further in a direction which will be helpful to the patient and to the family along the lines discussed by my colleagues in their papers.
End-stage euthanasia fits into our understanding of the covenantal relationship with God . It meets the criteria of the Jewish emphasis on a good life and the humane treatment of individuals. We may permit endstage euthanasia within the confines of the halakhah.
100