The applicant, who has been suffering for years from a terminal muscular dystrophy disease known as "ALS", expressed his explicit request to be disconnected from the ventilator, to which he is connected. The request was supported by an affidavit and by means of medical opinions
Tel Aviv District Court Judge Rahim Cohen, about two weeks ago, allowed the euthanasia of a terminally ill patient in his 40s, through a gradual reduction of the respiratory rate. Indeed, the patient died a few days ago and the court allowed the verdict to be published today.
The patient had been completely paralyzed for the past few years, except for the ability to move his eyes. He was confined to his bed and was unable to speak, did not control his braces and was artificially ventilated. A few months ago, the patient, through the lawyers Giora Erdinst and Avi Stav, petitioned the court so that it would allow him to end his suffering by disconnecting him from the ventilator to which he is connected. The office of the two represented the patient voluntarily.
The Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, presented his position in the procedure, which was revealed in the District Court in Tel Aviv, in the case of an ALS patient, who requested that he be allowed to disconnect from the ventilator.
The applicant, who has been suffering for years from a terminal muscular dystrophy disease known as "ALS", expressed his explicit request to be disconnected from the ventilator, to which he is connected. The request was supported by an affidavit and by means of medical opinions.
This is a "very difficult subject that descends to the depths of human values and morals, and rises to the summit of the thoughts of past generations and ours." Our concern is the foundations of the cultural and spiritual fabric of our society." (The words of the vice president of the Honorable Judge M. Alon in the Yael Shafer case (AA 506/88, FD MH (1) 87, 96).
The Attorney General pointed out the difficulty in formulating a position in cases like this, which involve complex questions of law, morality and religion. In our case, the applicant does not meet the definition of the "patient who tends to die", as it is fixed by law, since his life expectancy exceeds six months, as long as he is connected to the ventilator. The Attorney General stated that even on the assumption that the Patient's Rights Law does not apply, one must act under the inspiration of the Dying Patient's Law.
In his position, the Attorney General noted that the Dying Patient Law seeks to create a careful balance between the value of the sanctity of life and the value of the autonomy of a person's will and the importance of quality of life. As a result, the law creates a distinction between an active action, which leads to the death of a person, and a passive action, an omission (or avoidance of medical treatment), an omission that has the effect of causing the disease to overcome the person and overwhelm him. The law states that active action is prohibited, while failure to provide medical treatment may not be prohibited.
Accordingly, the Attorney General stated that there is no legal impediment under the special circumstances of the case, for the applicant to continue to be connected to the ventilator at all times, but at the same time, a gradual reduction of the breathing rate and the oxygen concentration will be carried out up to 21% (which is the concentration of oxygen in the air the usual). Thus, disconnection from the ventilator will not be carried out, and at the same time the applicant will not be forced to receive medical treatment, which he is not interested in.
The Attorney General chose to conclude his position with the following words: "The work of the court in cases like this is as difficult as the tearing of the Red Sea. Who is wise and knows how to drive and what is the right way to go. We sought to find a proper balance, along the path outlined by the legislator, with the most difficult question of all: "Who will live and who will die... who will rest and who will be tormented" (from the prayer "And she gave strength") and I wish we didn't have to make difficult decisions like these."
The verdict in the case of the patient is a precedent, being the first since the enactment of the "Tending to Die Law" from 2005. Among other things, the law stipulates that it will apply to terminally ill patients whose life expectancy is up to six months. Then life-saving medical treatment can be avoided. The law does not apply in this case because the estimated life expectancy of this patient exceeded six months.
As I recall in August 2011 Broadcaster Adi Talmor died there, through the Dignitas organization in Switzerland after suffering from lung cancer. He flew to Switzerland in the absence of the ability to do so in Israel (at that stage he was not yet connected to the devices).
More of the topic in Hayadan:
3 תגובות
If he was completely paralyzed except for the ability to move only his eyes? So how did he submit the request to kill her??
The government attorney (the attorney general, according to his official title) acted with an unprecedented speed that had not been seen so far in matters of corruption of members of the government or former members of the government. But to say that he "allowed the judge" shows that the writer also thinks that today there is no separation of powers in Israel, and the Prime Minister runs the government, runs the Knesset through the Ministerial Committee for Legislation and through his aforementioned official runs the judicial system and the general prosecution.
I hope that the judge would have reached this decision even if the aforementioned official had opposed euthanasia. In such a case, the measure of mercy should prevail over the measure of law until the Israeli law is amended.
The Attorney General pointed out the difficulty in formulating a position in cases like this, which involve complex questions of law, morality and religion: until when will religion interfere in our civilian lives? Until when?