have continued through the centuries(Lev.19.16; San. 73a; Yad Hil Rotzeah Ushemirat Nefesh 1:2, 14, 15; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 426). The question then is to what extent we may endanger ourselves in order to help others. There is no doubt that we must assist our fellow human beings, but where are the limits? This question has been discussed in a rather picturesque responsa of the 16th century scholar David ibn Zimri of Egypt(Vol III#627): The Pasha told a certain Jew to allow his leg to be amputated or else he(the Pasha) would kill another Jew . May this man endanger his life through the amputation in order to save the life of a fellow Jew? David ibn Zimri considered this beyond the call of duty.
The medieval Sefer Hassidim(#467 ed. Margolis) described a medicine which cured or killed the patient in nine days. The book prohibited the drug on the basis that it might kill the patient before his time(godem zemano). A number of later authorities have agreed with this assessment(Shevut Yaagov 1#13, 111#85; Binyan Zion#111; Hatam Sofer Yoreh Deah#16).
In this instance the patient appears to be doomed by the disease, and both patient and doctor have a choice whether to use this experimental treatment which leads to a horrifying death or whether 2 natural death somewhat sooner and also unpleasant shall be permitted. No one should persuade the patient to undertake this therapy which leads to a terrible death even if the patient may wish to help others and to us the last portion of his/her life in some useful fashion. In this instance the weeks of agony before death are so terrible that we can not justify the "treatment". It is unlikely that the patient or the family will be able t0 imagine the horrifying nature of this death. We should therefore do everything possible to persuade the attending physician not to suggest this treatment. If he/she feels that it must be mentioned then to put it into the bleakest possible context so that the patient is unlikely to choose it.