��I am going to begin this morning with a statement of regret and an apology. I regret speaking about this subject this morning. But, to remain silent would be to imply that there is nothing to say about it from a Jewish context and I that is not true. So I will address it. But, before I do, �I sincerely apologize to Ms. Terri Schiavo and to her family for addressing this issue publicly. I feel she is due the privacy of anyone facing a struggle of this kind but this issue is so full of meaning and so full of lessons that to not face them from a Jewish context is unthinkable.

��First, if you haven't been convinced over the past few days that you need a living will, an advanced directive and most critically, the proper, legal appointing of a power of attorney for health care decisions, you are making a terrible mistake. Do it now.

��For reference, I would be glad to provide you with a copy of the Living Will published by the Rabbinical Assembly. It is clear evidence that, without any reservations, having a living will or advance directive is completely consistent with Jewish law and in fact, we are obligated to have one out of respect for ourselves and consideration for our loved ones. This document will be a good starting point.

��If you look at that document, you will note that there were two issues which, more than any other, posed difficulties for the Rabbis. The first was the removal of life support which had already been in place.

��The problem with the removal of life support that is already in place is that it could be construed as being in conflict with Jewish law which states that we may remove ostacles to death but we may not hasten death. It has been decided that removing such support, where permitted by civil law, does not constitute actively hastening death. Rather it is, in fact, removing an obstacle to death. Thus, such actions are permitted.

��The second issue which caused difficulty regarded nutrition and hydration. Some Rabbis vehemently argued that feeding tubes are not extreme measures but are part of normal, sustaining care and that to remove them would be inconsistent with Jewish tradition and a form of active euthanasia. �The majority disagreed and considered it acceptable to refrain from providing nutrition and hydration in extreme cases. But, both positions were accepted and therefore, in the Rabbinical Assembly document, there is a detailed explanation of both positions and a place to indicate your choice.

��I mention these two facts to point out without question that the issues being discussed in this case are very difficult, complicated issues and there is no easy answer. Reasonable people who value life and are concerned for the rights of a patient could disagree. I have no issue with this being a topic of discussion and �I have no complaint at all with those who believe firmly that to remove the feeding tube from Ms. Schiavo would be a horrendous sin. Truthfully, if I were intimately involved in this case, if I were privy to her medical information and found that the details presented themselves in certain ways, I would agree with them. �

��But I don't know those details and that is just the point.

��I usually find that I reserve some of my strongest statements for issues of this kind. �I have clearly spoken against physician assisted suicide. I have clearly spoken for a right of a woman to choose regarding abortion and I have clearly presented Judaism's case against abortion for reasons other than the health and well being of the mother. I have clearly spoken in favor of organ donation and asked you to recognize that, from the perspective of Jewish law, it is a mitzvah, an obligation, to be a potential organ donor.

��And, I will be as straightforward here.

��This entire situation is a travesty.

��I have never visited Ms. Schiavo. I don't know her husband or her parents. I wasn't there to interpret her apparent movements. I don't know what she did or didn't say to her husband. I do not know the degree of her illness and I do not know her prognosis.

�� And, just as I don't know these things, members of Congress and the President do not know them either. Therefore to pass a law of the kind that was passed this past week, whether because of deep philosophical beliefs or political expediency, is plain and simply wrong.

��A court made a decision. It acted, one would presume, with first hand knowledge and in the tradition of impartial justice. If there are doubts about the court's action, there is an appeal process. But, that appeal process must be based on the merits of the case not on the noise generated by the other branches of government and a public which has been whipped into a frenzy by the media.

��I am not a constitutional lawyer. But, it seems to me that passing an emergency law to counter the judicial action in a current, specific personal case is so far from what is logical and sensible that I can not even find the words. I am appalled. And, now that Congress and the President have spoken in this way, they have set an example for every individual to speak negatively in public about court decisions which have been made. As a result, some people, including children, have tried to act in real or symbolic ways to circumvent the court's ruling. Of course, people have always taken such steps. But, this time, they are emboldened by the belief �that trusted elected officials have, in a sense, encouraged them to do so.

��I am not a constitutional lawyer and I have no deep knowledge in this field but I can not believe that this is what the founders of our nation intended.

��And that leads to the last point.

��This case is a wake up call, as if we needed one, to the fact that there are people in this nation who want to impose their interpretation of values and ethics on all of us and, apparently, the leaders of our government are willing to act in accordance with this desire. It is a blatant attempt to translate a religious value into one specific set of legal interpretations.

��I believe that our leaders have the responsibility to articulate a set of values for a nation but they must state them in sufficiently general terms so that the values unite us rather than divide us. They must allow those values to be interpreted broadly enough so that each of us who struggles with moral questions from the heights of our own individual traditions and in the depths of our heart is honored and respected.

��Let there be no mistake. I believe that this nation faces a crisis in terms of the values we choose to live by and I believe that organized religion can and should be a major player in alleviating this crisis. So religion should have something to say about the values at stake in these type of cases.

��In that spirit, here is what Judaism would say.

��Judaism is pro-life. Judaism honors life in this world over everything, even life in any world to come. Pikuach Nefesh, saving a life, is viewed as saving the entire world and every Jewish law, with so very few exceptions, must be broken in order to save a life. Life is to be guarded, respected and enjoyed to the fullest. Life is to be cherished, both in quality and quantity. According to Jewish law, an individual who is close to death is treated as being alive in every way. We are to treat them in their presence and away from their presence as deserving the dignity to be given to every human being. Each hour, each minute of life is precious and no one should forget that.

��But, even in ancient times, �our Rabbis realized that length of days and quality of life can come into ultimate conflict and how much more so is that true today given advances in medical care. In those cases where this conflict, a decision must be made but the decision is made by those most intimately involved in the case. The decision is made not haphazardly, not in public, not to push an agenda and not as a result of any pressure from the outside. A decision is made based on all the pertinent factors, examined carefully and as objectively as possible, by those directly involved.

��These are the most difficult decisions we have to make. As many of you have, I have had to be part of this decision process. I have been involved more times than I can ever remember as a Rabbi and one time that I will never forget: as a son, four years ago this week. There are no easy decisions. We make these decisions as best we can, guided by the law of the land, by our own principles, by our own sense of right and wrong and by our own definition of life. And we do so privately: not influenced by elected officials or by a world shouting in front of cameras. We never know if we have made the right decision but we do the best we can, take a deep breath and move on to further sanctify life by our actions and our priorities.

�� I feel so sorry for everyone in this case: the patient, �the husband, the parents, the family. It is none of our business. This is a family decision to be made with the guidance of physician, clergy if desired and other professionals who are familiar with the case. If a family can not agree and can not communicate and there is no direct statement of wishes by the patient, then let the court be called upon to make a decision between family members in private without the intrusion of the congress, the Governor, the President and the media. Their intrusion in this matter was a terrible, terrible mistake.

��In the long run, whether or not the feeding tube is reinserted or not and whether Ms. Schiavo dies in the near future will affect her family deeply. Truthfully, it will not change our lives.

��But, with this stunningly bizarre turn of events, if this type of situation becomes a precedent, you and I, no matter what our values are, will find America forever changed in terribly dangerous ways.

� � � � �And that would be a tragedy for all of us. ��

Robert Dobrusin, Rabbi
Copyright © 2005, Robert Dobrusin.
Permission is granted for distribution of this message providing that it is distributed in its entirety and with full attribution, including this copyright statement.

This message was originally posted on March 27, 2005.

Please send comments or suggestions to Rabbi Robert Dobrusin.