Torah Study > Chapter 2: B'Tzelem Elohim > Case Studies
Case Studies
Death with Dignity Act
In 1997, Oregon enacted the first physician-assisted suicide law in the
United States. The Death with Dignity Act permits physicians to write
prescriptions for a lethal dose of medication for people with a terminal
illness.
The Death with Dignity Act was a citizens’ initiative passed twice by
Oregon voters. The first time was in a general election in November
1994 when it passed by a margin of 51% to 49%. An injunction delayed
implementation of the Act until it was lifted on October 27, 1997. In
November 1997, a measure was placed on the general election ballot
to repeal the Death with Dignity Act. Voters chose to retain the Act by a
margin of 60% to 40%.
It is up to qualified patients and licensed physicians to implement the Act
on an individual basis.
The law states that in order to participate, a patient must be: 1) 18 years
of age or older, 2) a resident of Oregon, 3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and 4) diagnosed with
a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. It is up to the
attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met.
QUESTION:
• Does Oregon’s Death with Dignity act uphold or violate the Jewish
value of b’tzelem elohim, being made in the image of God?
TOP OF PAGE
Peter Singer
Peter Singer is an ethicist at Princeton University who believes that one
significant value is to maximize our happiness and comfort and minimize
suffering for all. Sounds good. But read more about how he would fulfill
that value:
In his book Should the Baby Live?, Singer writes: “It does not seem wise
to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of
severely disabled children.” He goes on to suggest that “a period of 28
days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having
the same right to live as others.”
Singer advocates euthanasia for babies who are unable to enjoy an
agreed upon quality of life.
“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another
infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness
will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for
the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second.
Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others,
it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
In the second edition of Practical Ethics, Singer makes clear that the parents,
together with their physicians, have the right to decide whether “the
infant’s life will be so miserable or so devoid of minimal satisfaction that it
would be inhumane or futile to prolong life.”
As an example, he speaks of severe forms of spina bifida, which, he
says “can affect as many as one in 500 live births.” He adds Down’s
syndrome, which is also not uncommon. Parents, by disposing of such
infants, may still have a chance to have “another pregnancy, which has a
good chance of being normal.” (Jewish World Review, Sept. 13, 1999—
http://www.jewishworldreview.com)
In an interview Singer is quoted as saying: “A human being doesn’t
have value simply in virtue of being a human; that is, just belonging to
the species ‘Homo Sapiens’ isn’t enough.”
(http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week302/cover.html)
QUESTION:
• How would you respond to Singer’s arguments in light of the value of
b’tzelem Elohim?
TOP OF PAGE
