SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA
were dead. There might also be some question if the intravenous feeding would be continued automatically until the physician gives a direct order that it be stopped. It would he less objectionable if it is the practice in the hospital to have each day’s intravenous feeding kept up by the direct daily order of the physician, and if, on that particular day, he simply refrains from ordering it to be continued. Thus, in no way would he be taking any direct action. Here, then, the principle(Eruvin 100a) shev veal taaseh adif would certainly apply.
To sum up: If the patient is a hopelessly dying patient, the physician has no duty to keep him alive a little longer. He is entitled to die. If the physician attempts actively to hasten the death, that is against the ethics of Jewish law. In the case as described, the term used in the question,"to hasten death," is perhaps not correct, or at least should be modified. The physician is not really hastening the death; he has simply ceased his efforts to delay it.