Jewish Law on Terri Schiavo & Feeding Tubes
Lisa Katz writes that traditional Judaism will reject the removal of feeding tubes in cases like Terri Schiavo's, but the other branches of Judaism have a more complex perspective. This is a perspective that I think is worth paying close attention to because it sounds like a sound ethical approach in general:
If the feeding tube is simply a way to provide basic nutrition, than progressive Judaism supports Schiavo’s parents and their fight to maintain the feeding tube. The hungry should be fed, and death must not be hastened, even in the case of a compromised life.
If, however, the feeding tube is seen as a form of medicine, a position held by some Conservative and Reform Halachic authorities, than the best interests of the patient come into the picture. And in this case it is possible the patient’s best interests might be to stop providing medicine.
According to some, feeding tubes are not as benign as they seem. The nutrition provided is lacking and infections are common. The patient can suffer from fluid buildup and digestion difficulties. By artificially pumping things into the body, feeding tubes can cause pain.
It's not entirely clear what "the best interests of the patient" technically means. Is this something that a doctor is deciding? Based upon what Lisa writes later I think that it includes what the patient desires and, in that case, this seems to be a statement of general principles that should be useful in many situations. It may not always be clear what qualifies as "basic nutrition" or "medicine," but those are good categories to use.
Gastric feeding tubes qualify more as "medicine" than "basic nutrition," even though they are used to deliver nutrition. That's already agreed upon when it comes to ventilators and they deliver air to us. How can a ventilator be regarded as medicine but gastric feeding tubes not?
Read More:


Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment