causes of the delay of death. He bases his discussion upon the Sefer Hasidim(edition Frankfurt ,#315), which says:"We may not put salt on his tongue in order to prevent his dying." And so Isserles in the Shulhan Arukh(loc. cit.) sums up what is permitted and what is not permitted by saying that such things are permitted"which do not involve action at all, but merely remove that which hinders the death.”
All this brings us to a clearer understanding as to the limits of freedom of action of the physician in relation to the hopelessly dying patient. He may not take any overt action to hasten death, such as giving him, perhaps, an overdose of an opiate, but he may refrain from doing that which will prevent his dying. Of course, in this case, if he ordered the removal of the intravenous apparatus, there may be some ground for objection if the removal of the apparatus was a rather forcible procedure and shook up the patient. But if for example, the removal of the apparatus was so gentle as not to disturb him, it would be like the wiping off of the salt on his tongue, which Isserles permits. If he does not even
do this, but merely gives the order that the bottle containing the nutriment not be refilled when it is emptied out, then, too, he committed no sin at all. He is merely, as the law says, preventing that which delays the death.
We have mentioned that Isserles states(Yoreh Deah 339.1) that one may remove that which prevents the person from dying, and thus, one may stop someone who is chopping wood outside because the regular sound concentrates the patient’s mind, and one may also remove some salt from his lips. The Taz objects only to wiping away the salt from the lips, because this action might move or shake the patient, and this would be an overt action hastening his death.
On the basis of this objection of the Taz, there might be some question, as we have mentioned, about removing the tubes from his arm through which the intravenous feeding enters his body. Of course, if this is done gently, the objection of the Taz would be obviated. Perhaps it would be better still if the tubes were not removed at all until the patient
200