Compulsory medical treatment
Hello Rabbi,
The Rabbi writes in the book of Proverbs that the matter of “forcing him until he says, “I want to,” is not a mystical matter, as is commonly interpreted in the words of Maimonides. Rather, it is an understanding that forcing him will lead him to give the divorce of his own free will, because as a God-fearing man, when he realizes that his resistance will be of no avail and his wife will be divorced as a result, his true desire, which had been denied and shrouded in the cloak of false theories, is revealed.
I asked whether, in the Rabbi’s opinion, the provision of the Patient’s Opportunities Law (Section 15(2)) can be understood as follows: “In circumstances where a patient is in serious danger and he objects to medical treatment, which under the circumstances of the case must be given as soon as possible, a therapist may provide the medical treatment even against the patient’s wishes if the ethics committee, after hearing the patient, has approved the provision of the treatment.”
Provided that she is convinced that all of these have been met.. c) There is a reasonable basis to assume that after the medical treatment is provided, the patient will give his consent retroactively.”
Is it possible to understand here too that coercion reveals his true will, that every person from the community apparently wants to preserve his life, only sometimes this will is wrapped in the guise of a false theory?
I’m not a lawyer, but that sounds completely reasonable to me.
By the way, some time ago I saw that there were several poskim (I think the Mahrikh was mentioned there, for example) who wrote to the Hadiya as I said.
The law required an empirical claim that can be statistically refuted (if we assume that a "reasonable basis" is 15%, then we would expect that 15% of patients would give retroactive consent. And then the committee would have to be stricter in granting treatment permits). Is that what you mean, too, or even if all the patients stand by their opinions, there is still room to gauge their true opinion and believe that they are not telling us the current truth (that they are happy that we gave them treatment) for various human reasons. I have not heard of a divorce that one has to wait a period of time until the husband (or a certain percentage of all husbands) shamefully admits that his real intention was to agree to a divorce.
You asked me? In my opinion, an unconscious opinion doesn't count.
I'm not sure I understand. The opinion is always aware of its owner, but not always of those around it. The law allows the committee to make a psychological assessment (will he regret it), but such an assessment can be statistically validated in retrospect. And if, even after a while, all the patients insist that they preferred to die, then from now on they will stop treating him. In the law of the one who forces him to do so, there is a psychological assessment (does he really want to when he says he wants to) that does not stand up to any test. Is this difference correct?
The famous and illustrious doctor was careful about forcibly treating Jews against their will but for the benefit of humanity.
The Torah gave the doctor permission to heal. Permission only.
1. Opinion is not always aware of its owner. At least not in real time.
2. I'm not sure that even in law anyone bothers to do statistical validation.
3. In halacha it is also possible to try to do such validation (asking people after they have been forced to give a get whether they were happy with the divorce). But I assume that no one has done it here either.
Can I please refer to a place where the rabbi explains in detail the law of Kufin until he says, "I want it?" If there is one, of course.
For example here: https://mikyab.net/posts/61377#_ftnref4
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
