Prof. Amos Shapira from the Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University and an expert in the field of medical ethics, says in a conversation with the Hedaan site that the issue involves ethical dilemmas of the law and of doctors
Dignitas, the Swiss organization that helps people commit suicide, is the place where IDF broadcaster Adi Talmor chose to end his life. His death was already determined on Friday, but it was only today that his family and from them his friends at the station found out about it
"Live with dignity - die with dignity" is the motto of the Swiss charity Dignitas. The Zurich-based group grabbed the headlines when people with chronic illnesses from all over the world came to Switzerland and asked for assistance in suicide.
Dignitas was founded in 1988 by a Swiss lawyer, Ludwig Minelli, and is operated as a non-profit. He took advantage of Switzerland's liberal laws regarding assisted suicide, according to which only people who did it out of self-interest (such as relatives who may be interested in inheriting the suicide's money) can be convicted of assisting suicide, but doctors who do so at the request of the patient are exonerated.
According to reports that appeared today on the television news, so far, with the help of doctors from the Dignitas organization, about a thousand foreign citizens who came from all over the world to take advantage of this loophole in the Swiss law have been killed in Switzerland. Some of them appeared in the TV movie
To understand the legal nuances that allow this, and why Switzerland specifically, we turned to Prof. Amos Shapira from the Faculty of Law at Tel Aviv University, one of the greatest experts in Israel on the issue of medical ethics.
"The issue of medical decisions at the end of life is a complex issue. First, what is the definition of end of life? It is customary to use the term terminally ill or terminally ill, these are vague definitions that can include different and diverse situations, for example a person who has fallen into an irreversible coma like former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for example does not meet the definition of a patient who tends to die in Israeli law because the definition speaks of someone suffering from an incurable disease With life expectancy by doctors of no more than 6 months, which of course means that the definition does not apply to Sharon.
In addition, there are several forms of medical conduct regarding a terminally ill patient or a patient tending to die, assuming that the criterion for determining that it is indeed a terminally ill patient is clear.
The first type of treatment is called palliative care or supportive care, treatment aimed at pain relief and alleviating the suffering of the patient at the end of his life through painkillers or other means. The sting is that an aggressive palliative treatment that aims to relieve the patient and not prolong his death can often result in the palliation of his death. For example, treatment with morphine, which is an accepted treatment for alleviating suffering, over time can suppress mechanisms and cause death. This type of conduct is the least formal and is recognized in most countries of the western world and here as well. Israeli law recognizes palliative care, supportive care that is intended for relief and pain relief even with the knowledge that it may bring the end."
The second type of conduct is the avoidance of life-sustaining or life-extending treatment, for example connecting to a respirator, Israeli law, as in all Western countries, permits under certain conditions the avoidance of life-sustaining or life-extending treatment when it comes to a patient who is prone to death according to the definition I mentioned earlier. A request is carried out by those who are able to request it in real time, or if the patient has left such a request in an advance directive.
The third type of conduct is the termination of life-sustaining medical treatment, not connection but disconnection. The person is connected to a ventilator, let's say he is sick and prone to death, the ventilator is working and now he requests or ordered at the time with an advance directive to disconnect him from the ventilator. Israeli law prohibits this, unlike in Western countries. This is of course determined by cultural influence and religious halachic influence - this is the source of the prohibition. Israeli law, unlike the other Western countries, makes a distinction between refraining from the beginning and stopping retrospectively, even if it is two patients who are identical according to their medical condition and meet the conditions, one is facing a connection and the other is connected and wants to disconnect, in the first case it is possible to grant his request ie. Not connecting is allowed, but if connected, disconnection is prohibited according to Israeli law. I am talking about the law as it is in the book. I don't know what actually happens in the hospitals, it may not be exactly the same or reflect the words of the written law."
"Being more active is medical assistance in the loss of self-knowledge, not by avoiding treatment or stopping treatment, but more than that - the doctor takes another direct active step, more direct than what we have said so far - that is, targeted and direct assistance in actually stopping life, for example by issuing A medical prescription through which a patient can receive drugs that are actually poison. So if he is able to do so, he can take the pills himself or inject himself or find another way to do it (according to the media, this is what happened in the case of Adi Telmor).
Issuing poison to a patient is prohibited according to Israeli law
Issuing poison that will cause the patient to commit suicide is prohibited according to Israeli law. This procedure is formally prohibited in Israel. In many countries there is no express formal legal permission for this, but there are a number of countries where it is definitely allowed. The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and in the USA the first country to pass a law in this direction and to allow a certain procedure in principle is allowed and possible, this is the state of Oregon. Today there are other states in the US such as the state of Washington and another state or two that have joined Oregon because they allow Physician Assisted Suicide - I lost myself knowing medically assisted suicide.
The most radical practice is euthanasia - literally, not even by issuing a medical prescription with the help of which the patient himself can end his life, but for example by injecting a lethal injection through a doctor in a medical procedure. Conduct of this type is allowed today in the Netherlands, Belgium, and under certain conditions in Switzerland,
In the Netherlands and Belgium, it is allowed if certain conditions are met and in an orderly procedure, which includes consultation, and they have to make sure that this is indeed the patient's wish and psychologists and psychiatrists also participate in the process, this does not happen overnight, but rather they give a cooling off period and check again and need more than one medical opinion. An official report must also be prepared for the health authorities. But in principle, when all these conditions and procedures are fulfilled, the doctor himself can inject a poison injection into the patient in order to end his life. In Israel it is of course forbidden, like assisting suicide which the law expressly forbids. That's the law. And again, what actually happens in rooms, I don't know." Prof. Shapira concludes.
13 תגובות
The guide of the universe: the slope you are sketching is unclear and incomprehensible. How did you jump from the sovereign person (as opposed to the rabbinic person) on his life to the state deciding to end the lives of citizens? Something strange.
The idea of euthanasia is important and appropriate.
We must enact a law that allows, according to a person's will - and under certain conditions (of sanity) - to take into his own hands the decision to end his life by himself using such a poison cocktail. And of course a person who is not paralyzed - will have to perform the act himself.
It is better to avoid the second option that exists today and is used: every person who is not physically disabled - has the second, less honorable option to end his life - which is either to jump from a high place in Azrieli - and then there is a good chance that he will take someone else with him - and dirty the sidewalk (unpleasant sight ) - and there is also a chance that he will remain a living plant. And the option of jumping over a bridge on a highway - or jumping in front of a train - and even then the sights will not be pleasant.
So if there is no way to prevent a person from ending his life - at least the state will be enlightened enough to allow it in a dignified manner.
the guide of the universe. There is no slope here. The survival instinct is a real factor not a social fiction.
One of the problems that should be taken into account if they want to change the law in Israel in the future, is the problem of the slippery slope.
When a person asks himself who is the sovereign over his body, the religious will answer that the sovereign is God and therefore it is forbidden to take a life even if in the eyes of others this life is full of suffering and there is no purpose in it.
The secular will answer that the sovereign is man himself.
The dangerous slope here is when the state naturally decides that the private person has given it this decision, because the state takes care of all of its citizens. The state could decide that a 95-year-old, deaf-blind woman with Alzheimer's in a hospital is a woman who is better off dead. Maybe that's the case, but maybe the real reason is the state's desire to save a few shekels.
And what about the elderly who is suffering and wants very much to live, whose family members will convince him that his death is better than his life, because of the nice inheritance that beckons them? He too can sign "with a clear mind" to his wish with a cup of poison.
The questions here are difficult, and perhaps it would be better if the state did not intervene at all.
Guy you made me laugh, Ali G. Aalek
For those interested, here is a discussion on euthanasia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_uJHdOtdc
A. Ben Ner:
I also got the impression (mainly according to the television reports) that the man was very lonely.
I don't know if this is true or not but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the way he chose to end his life.
The letters he left also do not indicate that he wanted to convey any message to others.
In my opinion, the most tragic thing about the story of Adi Talmore's death is actually
The loneliness of the man in his life. I am not speaking from knowledge but only implicitly.
It seems to me that the way he chose to end his life indicates that he was very lonely in his life.
I assume that a person with a family, a spouse and children, cannot choose to end this way
his life Perhaps Adi Telmore was not even aware of the meaning of his step but, the message
The main thing I get from his march is: "People, see how lonely I was in my life".
This feeling of mine increases in view of his choice to cremate his body and bury his ashes
in Switzerland.
Louis:
Woe to those who believe in nonsense and try to present what science has rejected as "new science"
The answer to these questions depends on the basic assumptions. Is life a supreme value? Or, the quality of life is a supreme value.
In terms of the basic survival instinct - life is the highest value, and the quality of life is just something that happens.
From the point of view of the developed person - the quality of life is a supreme value and life is something on the back of which the quality of life is built.
In any case, the law should have no meaning in such cases. A person who wants to die cannot (practically) be prevented from dying.
If death is avoided, it means that he did not want to die (which seems to me to represent most of the situations of suicide attempts that arise not from a real desire but from an attempt to get attention).
In practice, it seems to me that there is a lot of social hypocrisy around this issue.
Poor thing... It would have really ended his life, but he must have been creeped out that he saw his body from above. The scientific method regarding cognition is beginning to take on a different form of observation, death is not the end of the story, consciousness is not the result of memory or biological brain interaction as science has assumed until today, to ignore thousands of nde evidence and dozens of studies, it is an unwillingness to deal with non-intuitive information !!!
The most humane thing I can think of. There must be legislation in our advanced country as well.