SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA
trapped under the debris is to be rescued even if as a result of such efforts his life will be prolonged only by a matter of moments(Yoma 85a). Not only is every human life is immeasurable precious.
Passive euthaniasia appears in two forms:
A. Shev ve-al taaseh- Take no action, remain passive, in contrast to the active approach, qum ve’aseh, of active euthanasia. This usually refers to the situation before the patient is connected to the heartlung machine or given intravenous feeding.
Solomon B. Freehof wrote a responsum in 1969 about a terminal patient who was dying as a result of a series of strokes. Two physicians, one of whom was the patient’s son, decided- with the consent of the family- to hasten the end by withdrawing all medication and fluids given intravenokusly. Rabbi Freehof conswented, but suggested that it would be preferable if the hiosp[ital’s practice tohave each day’s intravenous feeding kept up by the direct daily order of the physicain, and if, on a particular day, it was decided that it should cease, the doctor simply refrains from ordering it to be continued. Thus, in no way would he be traking any direction. Here, then, the Talmudic principle Shev ve-al taaseh adif(it is preferable to desist from direct action) would certainly apply(W. Jacob,(ed.) American Reform Responsa#17).
B. The second form of passive euthanasia is the removal of the
impediment(Le-hasir et hamonea). R. Moses Isserles of Crakow, 16th century, decided that if these is anything which causes a hindrance to the departure of the soul, such as the knocking noise of wood chopping, Of salt on the patient’s tongue, and these hinder the soul’s departure, it 18 permissible to remove them. here is no act involved in this at all, but only the removal of the impediment(Shulhan Arukh).
R. Zvi Hirsch b. Azriel of Vilna explains this removal of ibe obstacle: It is forbidden to delay his death and they should not have pu
salt on his tongue to keep him from dying...therefore, 1t 18 permitted
193