SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

threatening situations(Teshuvat Atzei Levanon#61). The general principle that medical intervention is to be widely used has thus been established.

We must ask three further questions. Is this appropriate when the procedure is dangerous? Is there an age limit beyond which tradition would not advocate rigorous medical intervention’ Shall the ninety-six-year-old woman face the trauma of an amputation?

The fact that considerable risk may be undertaken to save or restore life is based on a Talmudic discussion(4. Z. 27b), which interprets a story from 2 Kings(7:3 f). In this tale a group of lepers about to starve in the siege of Samaria decided to risk the mercy of the Syrian army rather than face certain death in the city. The Talmud used this discussion to show that in life-threatening situations one might place oneself even into the hands of idolaters. In modern times this passage has been cited in order to permit the use of drugs whose side effects may be hazardous(J. Reischer , Shevut Yankov 111,#85; Posner, Bet Meir Yoreh Deah 339.1). There are further discussions about use of hazardous drugs when the chance of survival is low. Eliezer Waldenberg (7Zzitz Eliezer 10, #25, Chap. 5, Sec. 5) felt that a 50% survival rate was necessary to recommend usage. Others like Mosheh Feinstein(Igrot Mosheh, Yoreh Deah 2,#59) felt that hazardous procedures and drugs may be used even when there is only a remote chance of survival. This path was also followed by I. Y. Unterman(Noam 12, p. 5). There is considerable debate on this matter. It is quite clear, however, that the use of medical procedures with a high risk have been encouraged by traditional Judaism whenever there is an opportunity to save a life.

158