(A Z 18a; Semahot 2.2; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 345.2) and even its contemplation was considered wrong. We have also felt that euthanasia is not consistent with our tradition(W. Jacob, ed., American Reform Responsa#78, 79). We may see from the arguments presented in these two responsa that nothing positive may be done to encourage death, however, the“Living Will ” is not euthanasia, but an instrument of antidysthanonic. Our tradition has | felt that a goses(dying person) should also not be kept from dying after all hope for recovery has passed, and so the Sefer Hassidim stated that if the steady rhythm of someone chopping wood kept a goses alive, the wood chopping should be stopped(#723; Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 339.1). Some rabbinic statements limit the definition of goses to persons who will not live for more than three days, however, modern medical technology has made these limitations obsolete. Earlier Biblical statements clearly indicated that no positive acts to abbreviate life even when there was not hope were permitted(I Sam. 31.1 ff; II Sam. 1.5 ff). In a later age Solomon Eger indicated that medicine should also not be used to hinder a soul’s departure(comment to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 339.1). We may then safely say that at the critical juncture of life when no hope for recovery exists, the soul should be allowed to drift away peacefully. We have become even more sensitive to issues of euthanasia through our own experiences with the Holocaust .
Love of life in all its forms is very much part of our tradition. Even when conditions of life are rather doubtful and when there might be serious questions about the“quality of life,” we cannot encourage euthanasia(W. Jacob Contemporary American Reform Responsa#83), nor can we make assumptions about“the quality of life.
129