Having studied the positions of many humanist organizations, I was not surprised to learn that the Society for Humanistic Judaism (SHJ) supports the right of all people to decide when their lives should end. This decision, the SHJ states, is embedded in the right of a “competent adult to make decisions that affect that person’s quality of life,” including end-of-life decisions, because such decisions “affect a person’s quality of life. . . .”
SHJ is an organization that “mobilizes people to celebrate Jewish identity and culture consistent with a humanistic philosophy of life independent of a supernatural authority.” When supernatural beliefs are removed from consideration, we are left with reason, evidence, science, nature, and ethics to guide our decisions. Few people who approach end-of-life concerns from a humanistic perspective will arrive at a conclusion different from that of the SHJ. Those who believe in supernatural commands, however, may oppose views such as those expressed by the SHJ.
The SHJ discusses Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), using the term “physician-assisted death (PAD).” The two are essentially the same, though in some countries (e.g., Canada) medical personnel other than physicians may provide the assistance. The SHJ first formally addressed this subject in 2007, when it adopted a statement encouraging the use of advance directives to assure a “personal choice regarding decisions about the ending of one’s own life.” Six years later, it adopted a statement specifically addressing PAD or MAID.
In its 2013 statement, the SHJ held “that mentally competent adults with irreversible, terminal medical conditions accompanied by intense suffering should have the right to physician assistance in dying.” This position included support for laws to guarantee the rights to such assistance for all people.
The position of the SHJ is logically presented:
• Each human being should have control over his or her own body and autonomy in matters of personal concern.
• A competent adult diagnosed with a fatal disease that will cause unbearable pain and suffering has the right to die in a dignified and peaceful manner.
• Government has no substantial, legitimate interest in prolonging the lingering, painful death of a terminally ill person who wants to die.
• Physician-assisted death (PAD), also called physician-assisted suicide, in which a physician, at the request of a terminally ill patient, provides the patient with a lethal dose of medication that the patient can take when he/she is ready, promotes dignity and autonomy.
• Carefully constructed PAD laws—such as those adopted by (various states and countries)—can protect human dignity and autonomy while preventing abuse and upholding the value of human life. Such laws may require two or more physician approvals, witnesses, waiting periods, multiple oral and written requests by the patient, a psychological examination, and/or consultation with family. Safeguards such as these can prevent abuse of PAD, which opponents claim could become a slippery slope leading to the indiscriminate killing of the ill, weak, and disabled.
• Without reasonable PAD laws, individuals may commit suicide in a violent way or needlessly suffer in an undignified manner.
• Opposition to suicide on religious grounds cannot justify prohibition of PAD, failure to permit it, or penalties on physicians who participate in it. Separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our democracy.
• Persons requesting PAD should be fully informed of alternatives, such as unconventional modes of treatment and palliative care. However, some such persons may view palliative treatment as prolonging the anguish of dying rather than enhancing life.
• Physicians who consider PAD to be inconsistent with the Hippocratic Oath and with their role as healers should have the right to refuse to engage in PAD.
These arguments form the basic foundation for the widespread support for MAID everywhere it has been adopted in the US, including Oregon, Washington, Vermont, District of Columbia, Colorado, California, and Hawaii. In Montana, it is allowed by court interpretation of Montana’s constitution.
The SHJ stipulated that such laws should be written to assure that decisions are “informed, voluntary, and free of undue influence.” Its views are derived from a historic appreciation of the values and practices of Judaism, through which it views “Jewish history as testimony to the continuing struggle for human dignity and, like the history of other peoples, as a product of human decisions and actions.”
The SHJ strives “to foster a positive Jewish identity, intellectual integrity, and ethical behavior among celebrants” while affirming “the value of study and discussion of Jewish and universal human issues,” relying “on such sources as reason, observation, experimentation, creativity, and artistic expression to address questions about the world and in seeking to understand our experiences.” Its core principles recognize “the enduring Jewish tradition of support for social action and social progress, to community service and actions for social justice.”
This commitment to social justice is an integral part of recognizing the right of all people to decide the course of their lives, including what happens to each person at the end of life. The rich tradition that underlies the SHJ views on advance directives and MAID should motivate others to give serious consideration to SHJ’s support of the death-with-dignity movement.
######################
Marty Seidenfeld provided the idea to look at the Society for Humanistic Judaism’s position regarding death with dignity. My thanks for his encouragement. –LWH
I certainly applaud the society for its decision to adopt this reasonable position. It certainly is a position which coincides very closely with the broad philosophic and ethical principles of Humanism.
This is an excellent article. I support this thinking about the right to die when an individual is ready to die.