The religious law that addresses all ethical aspects on Jews is called Halakhah. One fundamental principle of Halakhah is the sanctity of human life. Causing life to end is a violation, either by an act of commission or by act of omission. This is valid for every human being independently of life expectancy or quality of life (Greenberger, 2015). There are other halachic principles that have an impact in health care situations, obligation to preserve the dignity of the human being, obligation to take responsibility for preserving one’s own life, health and well-being, and obligation to save life at the expense of all (Greenberger, 2011).
Jewish defines health as the interrelatedness of body, mind, and spirit, also known as wholeness or shleimut.
…show more content…
The relation between the physician and the patient is a divine commandment. To seek for medical help is not optional according to Jewish sacred scriptures. Also is an obligation for the physician to heal the sick. When a treatment has been proven to be beneficial, the patient should follow it (Steinberg, 2015). Halakhic questions in Judaism are resolved casuistically; meaning that each situation must be examined to have in consideration all individual circumstances. Medical situations with halakhic ramifications may involve the participation of the patient, the physician and the rabbinic decisor (Steinberg, 2015). However, patients are not free to refuse a treatment that is considered beneficial to save their life. Relying on miracles is not included in Jewish beliefs; individuals must follow standard medical practice. Almost all biblical laws are waived to save a human life. Halakhah is in direct conflict with autonomy in regards to preservation of one’s health and life (Steinberg, 2015). Lastly, there are no terrifically identifiable barriers to the health care in Israel. They use same medical guidelines and textbooks than in the United States, socialized medicine is exercised, and a hundred percentage of population is covered by health insurances (Frenkel, …show more content…
In addition, they have private practices. According to Frenkel (2014), “Based on the size of Israel, the number of publications on integrative medicine and complementary medicine coming from medical institutions in different parts of this country is tremendous, and that is encouraging.” Since mid 1990s every person is covered by health insurances. There are four health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that include access to complementary medicine (Frenkel, 2014). For instance, Frenkel (2014) explains, “Today, when you talk to an average physician about the use of complementary medicine, it is no longer a big ‘no-no’; rather, it is now part of the understanding that this is what people are interested in.” Jewish Americans were found to be less healthy than other US whites and healthier than US blacks; this comparison was based on individual of same level of education and income (Pearson & Geronimus, 2011). The overall status of residents regarding health care is sharpened by Frenkel’s (2014) study about integrative medicine in Israel and how the system supports better access to complementary therapies, which found the
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
Which decisions about dying are morally acceptable to concernd Christians, and which ones go beyond morally acceptable limits? Which medical practices and public policies allow for more humane treatment for those who are dying and which ones open the door to abuse and the violation of human dignity? Proposals in various states to legalize physician-assisted death [3] point to renewed interest in these old questions. ELCA members, congregations, and institutions need to address these questions through prayer and careful reflection.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
Today there are five to ten thousand comatose patients in long term care facilities (Wheeler A1). There are countless elderly people in care facilities that have repeatedly expressed a desire to die. There are countless terminally ill patients that have also begged for death. Should these people be allowed to die, or should they be forced to keep on living? This question has plagued ethicists and physicians throughout the years.
For legally competent adult patients, regarding medical care per se - according to Anglo-American law -- every competent adult has the freedom to seek or not to seek medical care and to refuse to consent to any specific treatment proposed, under the common law right of bodily integrity and intangibility:
disease, or a person who is dying". the church says any law permitting euthanasia is a unjust
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
In most modern mainstream religions, life is viewed as intrinsically good and worth preserving. We as doctors, come from many different faiths and religion, but we all follow one creed, one oath, the Hippocratic oath. Granted, over the years there have been many variants, but all contain the same underlying principle, that life is foundationally good. This is due to the fact that all things come from life, even death. At the same time, we as doctors must never forget that many of our patients are autonomous, and ultimately free. Physicians must rely on the patient, just as the patient often relies on the physician. The patient is the only one who knows what it is that they themselves what. In the United States, we take our freedom incredibly seriously, and we guard it as we would our most valuable possessions. We as doctors must walk a fine gray line between patient rights and our role as doctors. Nowhere is this more apparent then when dealing with patient assisted suicide, and more commonly, end of life care. Below is this committee's draft policy, which we feel our hospital should adopt.
Center for Bioethics: University of Minnesota. End of Life Care: An Ethical Overview. 2005. PDF.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Regarding euthanasia, which the Church defines as acts of commission, such as actively assisting a patient to take his or her own life, or omission, such as withholding nutrition and other support to patients, that cause death in order to eliminate suffering, the Church lives by two principles. Pope Pius XII taught the use of ordinary means to sustain life and extraordinary means in some cases, a principle that the Vatican later refined with support for the withholding of medical treatment or technology if it is excessively burdensome or not beneficial to the patient. The Church also tries to distinguish between patients in persistently vegetative states and terminally ill patients, which secularists tend to group together in their advocacy for euthanasia (McHugh).
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
...healing process of the patient. Healthcare professionals should frequently ask questions in order to fully understand if certain needs are to be met because of religious practices or beliefs. For example, a fresh bed sheet can be offered to a Muslim in order for a clean space for their daily prayers (pg. 21, Singh, 2009). Certain medical decisions can be difficult to finalize since religion must be taken into consideration. Healthcare providers will come into contact with people of different faiths, nationalities and cultures. All patients should be treated with the same amount of respect and acceptance in order for their medical needs to be fairly met.
According to the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies, reported on its website in the document "Physician-Assisted Suicide Survey," (accessed on Oct. 27, 2006), "Religious identity correlates with attitudes toward the ethical status of assisting in suicide. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Jews believe in the majority that it is unethical to assist such acts, while Conservative, Reform and secular Jews say that such assistance is ethical” (procon). This term is also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying), doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and mercy killing. In most of the countries, euthanasia or assisted suicide is against the law.