Jewish Law Responds to American Law 185

314.

315, 316. 317. 318. 319.

320.

322, 323. 324. 325.

326. 327. 328. 329. 330.

331. 332. 333. 334. 335.

336. 337. 338. 339. 340.

Daniel B. Sinclair,“Patient Self-Determination and Advance Directives, ” 8 Jewish Law Association Studies, vol. 8, 1994, p- 173.

C.A. 759/92(T.A.), Zadok v. Beth Haelah, PM.(unpublished).

Sinclair, Op. Cit., p. 180.

Ket. 70a.

Sinclair, Op. Cit., 181.

Harvey L. Gordon, Assisted Suicide , Bio-Ethics: Program/Case Study, Union of Am. Hebrew Congregations, Summer 1994.

Alvin J. Reines,“The Morality of Suicide: A Surresponse,” Journal of Reform Judaism, Winter 1991, p. 74.

. Bernard Zlotowitz and Sanford Seltzer,“Suicide as a Moral Decision,” Jour­

nal of Reform Judaism, Winter 1991, p. 66.

Ibid.

See supra text accompanying notes 4-13.

Board of Comm'rs v Bond, 88 Ind. 102(1882).

923 F.2d 477(6th Cir. 1991). For a situation with an almost identical fact pat­tern, see Whaley v. County of Tuscola, 58 F.3d 111(6th Cir. 1995).

Ibid.

Ibid.

Onio Rev. Cope ANN.§§ 2108.01-.09(Banks-Baldwin 1995).

Onio Rev. Cope ANN§ 313.121(Banks-Baldwin 1997).

Michael Graham,“The Role of the Medical Examiner in Fatal Child Abuse,” Child Maltreatment,(James A. Monteleone& Armand E. Brodeur eds.), NEw YORK , 1994, p. 431.

Ibid. 433.

Ibid.

Bleich, Op. Cit., p. 162.

Deuteronomy 21:23.

“Inference from minor to major, or from major to minor.” The Authorized Daily Prayer Book,(Joseph H. Hertz trans. rev. ed.), London , 1959, p. 43.

See Pikku’ah Nefesh supra note 283.

Baba Basra 154a f.

Hullin 11b.

Onio Rev. Cope ANN.§ 313.12(Banks-Baldwin 1997).

The state also accommodates religious beliefs in performing an autopsy. If an autopsy is contrary to the deceased's religious beliefs, but is a“com­pelling public necessity,” the coroner must wait forty-eight hours before performing the procedure. This waiting period is designed to allow the rel­atives of the deceased to petition for an injunction against the autopsy. OHIO Rev. Cope ANN.§ 313.131(Banks-Baldwin 1997).

. ELoN, Op. Cit., vol. 1, supra note 22. . Elliot N. Dorff and Arthur Rosett, A Living Tree: The Roots and Growth of Jew­

ish Law, New York , 1988, p. 516.

3. Elon, Op. Cit., vol. 1, p. 71.

. Ibid.: . The principle of dina de-malkhuta dina would not be operative in matters of

defining death or in questions of organ donation. There is no conflict with regard to organ donation as it is not a statutory requirement. In the future there may be a dispute between secular law and Jewish law if the two sys­