Judaism & Euthanasia
The Hebrew Bible frequently confronts readers with the finitude of man’s physical existence.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 reminds individuals of this, stating “There is a time for everything and a
season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die.” Biomedical
technology has advanced significantly, in recent years. As a result, humans now have access
to technologies that cannot only monitor and cure diseases but also allow patients to decide
their death – this is referred to as, euthanasia. Consequently, society is now increasingly
confronted with contemporary (bio-)ethical issues, ranging from beginning of life dilemma –
or abortion – to end of life issues, such as euthanasia. Judaism has a general consensus on the
affirmation of the sanctity of life. However, one must account for the layer of diversity within
Judaism, referring to its branches: Conservative, Orthodox, and Reform. Opposing active
euthanasia is ubiquitous within all branches of Judaism; however Orthodox, Reform and
Conservative’s adherents have differing views through their interpretation of the Jewish
sources towards advocating for passive euthanasia.
The practice of euthanasia has been controversial for decades. The distinction between
passive and active euthanasia is inherent in discussing the ethical extent of euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia involves the withdrawal or withholding of any life-sustaining medical
treatment from the patient – with permission from either the patient or immediate family –
allowing the patient to pass. Active euthanasia, however, involves the patient receiving a
lethal dose of substances or force – by definition involving a direct action. Overall, all forms
of euthanasia, involve the intention of expediting the patient’s death within their interests. (E
Garrard, 2004) The predominant ethical issue with euthanasia lies within the practice of
active euthanasia. This is the result of a common belief that its actions are impermissible, as it
is the intentional termination of the human life. (Rachels, 2011) Defining the specifics of
euthanasia provides a more thorough and clear analysis of Judaism’s consensus.
For an appropriate analysis of the Jewish responses on euthanasia, it is necessary to quote
several Jewish sources that are widely adopted by Judaism and its authorities. The
heterogeneity present within Jewish tradition is the result of diverse, sometimes contradictory
beliefs that emerge from differing interpretations of religious sources. Methods in Jewish
ethics involve addressing Jewish authorities and rabbis, derived from the Jewish textual
sources. This method was fundamental in the creation of Responsa literature, which is a
collection of writings composed by Jewish Rabbi and renowned scholars in response to an
ethical dilemma. Jewish theology demonstrates that Judaism is traditionally built upon a
system of established laws and behaviour, collectively known as the Halacha, meaning “the
way” (Gary Goldsand, 2008). The Halacha contains a collection of Jewish texts, including
the Torah and the Talmud. Therefore, any Jewish ethical reasoning is derived from the
interpretations of the sources. One widely regarded Rabbinical principle called “Pikuach
Nefesh”, which refers to the sanctity of human life and virtually overrides any other religious
rule, (Greenspan, 1996) this implies that human life has infinite value. Another notable
source, Semahot 1:1-4, is demonstrated throughout Jewish medical literature as the law of
goses. A goses is defined as a person whose death is impending. (Rubenstien, 2016) The
principles associated with the goses holds a substantial ethical significance in Judaism, as
particular Jewish sources that permit withdrawal of medical treatment – passive euthanasia –
have diverse interpretations within the Jewish branches (Rubenstien, 2016).
In the Orthodox branch, adherents oppose any participation in euthanasia, as it violates their
belief in the sanctity of human life. Orthodox Jews, considered as traditional Jews, interpret
Jewish sources literally, ergo inform their decisions directly from the sacred texts. Rabbi
David Bleich is a profound Orthodox adversary of euthanasia, extensively publishing on the
topic. Bleich states “…the value of human life is supreme and takes precedence over virtually
all other considerations.” (Bleich, The Obligation to Heal, 2003), suggesting that human life
can overrule any Jewish law – even on holy days. He exclaims, “The practice of euthanasia –
whether active or passive – is contrary to the teaching of Judaism.” (Bleich, Euthanasia,
2003). According to him, nobody possesses absolute ownership of their life and body;
ownership is invested in God (Bleich, The Obligation to Heal in the Judaic Tradition, 2000).
Since humans are God’s creation, he holds authority. Considering this, Bleich states “man
does not enjoy the right to self-determination with regard to questions of life and death”
(Bleich, Death and Dying, 1979). Consequently, the human intervention of any form in the
person’s remedial process, is then, deliberate intervention with God’s superintendence. In
addition to this, Bleich suggests that the patient who is seeking medical care then forsakes
their faith by betraying their trust in God (Bleich, The Obligation to Heal, 2003). However,
for this to stand, Orthodox adherents must consider the circumstance when the patient is not
in a suitable state, which someone else answers on their behalf. Referring to the Jewish
source, Semahot 1:1-4 – from Babylonian Talmud –, Bleich interprets this source literally. As
Rabbi Meir says, whoever hastens the death of a dying person [goses], is considered to have
killed them. (Herring, 1984) Responding to this, Bleich believes that the death of a goses
cannot be expedited, nor is there an obligation to heal the patient – lengthening their life.
(Bleich, Euthanasia, 2003) The Orthodox attitude towards the action of passive euthanasia
does not differ from theirs on active euthanasia. The involvement of withdrawing or
withholding treatment from a patient is no different from providing the patient with a lethal
injection, both prohibited in Jewish law. Many orthodox authorities – including Bleich –
believe it to be mandated by virtue of “Love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). The
evidence suggests that Orthodox Jews base their advocacy that the practice of euthanasia –
passive or active – contradicts the fundamental teachings of Judaism on a consequential basis.
As an act that intentionally hastens the death of a patient is equal to murdering the person;
“No matter how laudable the intentions…” (Bleich, The Obligation to Heal, 2003).
Within the Conservative branch of Judaism, some inner heterogeneity is present when
discussing the ethical extent of euthanasia. The Conservative branch occupies the middle of
the contemporary Judaism spectrum, identifying both sacred texts and Rabbinical
interpretations of equal worth. Conservative Rabbis Elliott Dorff Byron Sherwin have
distinctive arguments against euthanasia – predominately passive. Dorff opposes euthanasia,
whereas Sherwin asserts himself as an advocate of euthanasia. To begin with, Rabbi Dorff,
mentions the law of goses (Semahot 1:1-4) describing its significance on the ethical issue.
Following this, Dorff makes a distinction between passive and active euthanasia, with the
latter (passive) being more acceptable, while active cannot be justified and is strictly
forbidden (Dorff, 1998). However, where Conservative authorities differ is the extent of
where our ‘obligation’ to cure ends. Amongst these authorities, it is unanimous that the
patient may abstain from life-saving medical efforts – but not from pain-relieving medicine –
once the patient is in a state of goses (Dorff, 1998). In Dorff’s opinion, the distinction has to
made between prolonging life and prolonging death, and by doing so, determines the patients
required treatment. Rabbi Sherwin’s pro-euthanasia arguments stem from varied
interpretations of ethical Jewish sources. Sherwin presented that given certain situations
killing another human being may be justified according to Jewish law, yet in an instance of
martyrdom, killing oneself, or allowing oneself to be killed is required by Jewish law. As it
demonstrates the ultimate expression of sacrifice to God (Sherwin, Euthanasia, 2000).
Sherwin, follows up on this expressing that martyrdom is considered to be the most superior
virtue, “transcending the obligation to preserve human life” (Sherwin, Euthanasia, 2000). So
what was thought to be the principle to overrule all Jewish rules, now is the one to be
overruled in the name of God. Referring to pikuah nefesh – preservation of life – Sherwin
believes it to not always be morally imperative. To which he mentions the Talmudic story of
400 children to prevent being abused, drown themselves after hearing the Lord tell them to do
so (Sherwin, A View of Euthanasia, 1990). An important factor in the Conservative proeuthanasia argument is the approach to a goses. In terms of this, Sherwin identifies that the
distinction between a goses and a tereifah is necessary. According to the Talmud, Sanhedrin
78a, a tereifah, is a person suffering from a terminal illness and is legally considered a dead
person, and to reiterate, a goses is a dying person, who’s expected to die shortly. Jewish law
also states that whoever kills a tereifah may not be liable to punishment. Consequently, in the
event of a patient who can be described as a tereifah, Jewish law permits the patient to be
killed – via passive euthanasia – without any consequences. Taking the provided evidence,
Conservative Rabbis Dorff and Sherwin both advocate that active euthanasia is forbidden,
whilst Sherwin – and to an extent Dorff – advocate that only in specific situations passive
euthanasia may be permitted. Dorff and Sherwin, and therefore Conservative adherents,
interpret the sources out of virtue, taking into account the needs and state of the patient. Such
then reflects Conservative Judaism’s interpretation style on ethical issues.
A relatively recent branch of Judaism, the Reform branch, has spoken considerably on
euthanasia. A statement given from the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) said
“As Reform Jews, we consider ourselves free to ascribe ‘new’ Jewish meanings to our
texts…” (W. Gunther Plaut, 1997). Reform Jews have an equivocal relationship with the
halacha’s authority, therefore has a lesser influence on their decision-making than it does to
the other branches. Reforms thus have a Rabbinic basis for their decision-making. Inferring
that Reform adherents are significantly informed on their ethical responses by notable
Reform authorities (Cohen, 2005). Reform Rabbi Walter Jacobs was asked, “What is the
Jewish attitude towards euthanasia?” Within his answer, he mentions Semahot 1:1-4, the law
of the goses, to which he refers to them [goses] as a ”living person in every respect”.
Therefore hastening their death in any form is murder. Additionally, any medical treatment –
medication, devices – can only be discontinued once the patient is declared dead (Jacob,
1983). The CCAR – who have several Jewish Reform representatives – prohibit euthanasia;
notwithstanding, their equivocal relationship with the halacha makes it difficult to bolster an
argument based upon Rabbinic interpretations. In Rabbi Freehof’s and Rabbi Bettan’s
responsa, both confirm that active euthanasia is strictly forbidden in Reform Jewish tradition
(Freehof, 1983) (Bettan, 1983). Much like the Conservative branch, Reform Jews also differ
in opinion on contemporary ethical issues. Despite the CCAR’s outlook, some Reform
Rabbis advocate for euthanasia. One of the most renowned Rabbis associated with this is
Rabbi Leonard Kravitz. Kravitz explains the fact that the word ‘euthanasia’ is of Greek
affiliation, literally meaning ‘easy death’, which he connects to the Hebrew term found in the
Talmud, mitah yafah, meaning ‘a nice death’ (Kravitz, 1994). Remarking the law of goses,
Semahot 1:1-4, Kravitz indicates that according to Semahot, one mustn’t hasten the death of a
goses, yet according to a subsequent authority, one may remove any obstacle that prevents
the [natural] death of a goses (Kravitz, 1994). The passage provides definitive insight into the
attitude towards passive euthanasia. Given examples from the passage include the noise of
chopping wood or salt on the patient’s tongue. Applying this to contemporary society, one
can then infer that any life-sustaining treatment can be considered an ‘obstacle’, which if then
removed will allow the patient or goses to pass without breaking any Jewish laws.
Concluding this, Rabbi Kravitz’s response states that from a Reform viewpoint, active
euthanasia is forbidden, and passive euthanasia is allowed, yet remains unresolved.
Opposing active euthanasia is ubiquitous within all branches of Judaism; however Orthodox,
Reform and Conservative’s adherents have differing views through their interpretation of the
Jewish sources towards advocating for passive euthanasia. Although Judaic tradition, states
the extreme value of life and the prospect of maximising one’s life, to say that Judaism,
collectively prohibits euthanasia will be contradictory to the religion’s heterogenic
characteristic. Within Judaism’s consensus, it is reasonable to say Ecclesiastes 3:2 “…there is
a time to die.” must be honoured.
References
Bettan, I. (1983). 78. Euthanasia. In W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa (pp. 261-263).
New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Bleich, J. D. (1979). Death and Dying. In J. D. Fred Rosner, Jewish Bioethics (pp. 269-270).
Brooklyn: Hebrew Publishing Company.
Bleich, J. D. (2000). The Obligation to Heal in the Judaic Tradition. In J. D. Fred Rosner,
Jewish Bioethics (pp. 3-46). KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
Bleich, J. D. (2003). Euthanasia. In J. D. Bleich, Judaism and Healing; Halakhic
Perspectives (pp. 176-177). Jersey City: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
Bleich, J. D. (2003). The Obligation to Heal. In J. D. Bleich, Judaism and Healing (pp. 1-11).
Jersey City: KTAV Publishing House.
Cohen, P. M. (2005). Toward a Methodology of. CCAR Journal: A Reform Jewish Quarterly,
pp. 1-19.
Dorff, E. N. (1998). Letting One Die: Passive Euthanasia. In E. N. Dorff, Matters of Life and
Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics (pp. 198-202). Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society.
E Garrard, S. W. (2004). Passive Euthanasia. Staffordshire: Keele University.
Freehof, S. B. (1983). 77. Allowing a Terminal Patient to Die. In W. Jacob, American Reform
Responsa (pp. 257-260). New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Gary Goldsand, Z. R.-Y. (2008). Jewish bioethics. In A. M. Peter A. Singer, The Cambridge
Textbook of Bioethics (pp. 424-429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenspan, L. (1996). JUDAISM AND THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. Hamilton: McMaster
University Press.
Herring, B. F. (1984). Sources. In B. F. Herring, Jewish Ethics and Halakhah for our time:
Sources and Commentary (p. 70). New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
Jacob, W. (1983). 79. Euthansia. In W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa (pp. 271-276).
New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Kravitz, L. (1994). Euthanasia. In M. Z. Walter Jacob, Death and Euthanasia in Jewish Law,
Essays and Respona (pp. 11-25 ). Pittsburgh: Rodef Shalom Press.
Mackler, A. L. (2000). End-stage medical care. In E. N. Dorff, Life and death responsibilites
in Jewish biomedical ethics (pp. 309-337). New York: Louis Finkelstein Institute.
Rachels, J. (2011). Active and Passive Euthanasia. In N. A. Dr Nancy S Jecker, Bioethics: An
Introduction to the History, Methods and Practice (pp. 77-87). Jones & Bartlett
Publishers.
Rubenstien, J. L. (2016). Can a Goses Surive for More Than Three Days? The History and
Defiinition of the Goses. In J. L. Rubenstien, Journal of Jewish Ethics (Vol. 2, pp. 137). New York: The Pennsylvanisa State University.
Sherwin, B. L. (1990). A View of Euthanasia. In B. L. Sherwin, In Partnership with God,
Contemporary Jewish Law and Ethics (pp. 85-101). Syracuse : Syracuse University
Press.
Sherwin, B. L. (2000). Euthanasia. In B. L. Sherwin, Jewish Ethics for the Twenty-First
Century (pp. 35-61). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Stern, D. H. (1998). The Hebrew Bible. Hendrickson Publishers.
W. Gunther Plaut, M. W. (1997). On the Treatment of the Terminally Ill. In M. W. W.
Gunther Plaut, Teshuvot for the Nineties, Reform Judaism's Answers to Today's
Dilemmas (pp. 137-164). New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis.