Q&A: The Reliability of Two Doctors
The Reliability of Two Doctors
Question
On the Otzar HaChochma forum, someone raised the following question, and I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s view on it:
The halakhic decisors wrote that in a life-threatening situation we do not take into account the opinion of a single doctor against the majority, but if there are two doctors, then even against a hundred doctors we do take their view into account. What is the reasoning behind this—that one against several individuals is disregarded, but two against a hundred is taken into account?
I also wanted to ask: what is the law in a case that is not life-threatening, but involves bodily harm? In that case as well, do we take the minority view into account?
Answer
I assume that the view of those halakhic decisors is that a lone opinion may simply be a mistake, but when there are two expert opinions it is hard to assume that this is just an error. There is a tannaitic opinion that a presumption is established on the basis of two cases, and not only three.
In my opinion, there is no difference: what difference does it make whether it is all killing or half killing?
And in general, when everyone was not counted in a formal tally, there is no rule of following the majority, even in Jewish law and among halakhic decisors. See Choshen Mishpat, section 25; this is a well-established matter.
It seems to me that in practice this does not depend on general rules at all, but on the patient’s own judgment, or that of whoever is making the decision on his behalf. If he fears that the minority is correct, then he should take that into account (danger is treated more stringently than prohibition), but if it seems to me that the majority is correct, he may follow the majority. This is somewhat like the rule that “the heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (though of course not exactly the same thing). What I mean is that he has permission to take the minority view into account, not that he is obligated to do so.