Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ivdu
‘”Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too”. thats right! What good is cake if you can’t eat it?
I dont get this one. If you eat it you no longer have it, as the saying correctly points out “you cant have your cake and eat it too” it is one or the other
Unless you mean the word “too” isnt neccesary?
yiddishemusic
I had the same thought!
Though it is more than just illogical, most of his statments are simply factually incorrect. I find it fascinating when people cling to statements that are simply and demonstrably false
cheerybim
Even if your “facts” were correct which many are not, your over all attitude displays a complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand.
Here is my question to you again
“Several posters have pointed out to you that there are two types of diabetes. Yet you still seem to be fusing them together.
Prior to this discussion, did you know there were two types?
Do you know now?”
I also have another question. I’m curions where you got these “facts” from
“Advancement? Like what? Either a diabetic changes his eating habits and starts to exercise daily (like telling a drug addict to just stop his habit), or he is finished. “
Are the “Certified diabetic medical sites” you found really not aware of advances in diabetes? Do they really lump all diabetics together like you do?
Or this gem
“However, it’s not an exact science and at any time blood sugar levels can shoot dangerously high, or plummet seriously low.”
Which “certified diabetic medical site” says that at any time blood sugar levels cna rise and fall on their own?
cheerybim
I’d be happy too. Though there are a lot of “facts” in your posts most of which arent true. Which in particular would you like corrected?
“not all diabetics have similar requirements”
True
” or reactions to devices.”
False
” Continuous glucose monitoring systems are invasive”
false
” and the sensor which is placed in the body is replaced every few days.”
True but that is less often thanchecking fingersticks
“the continuous glucose monitors are very expensive: the monitor itself can cost up to $2000 and other material expenses are about $2500 per year.”
True though many insurances will pay
” Whereas, the standard monitor is usually obtained free of charge”
True
” and costs pennies per day to operate.”
False
“But even if you can own a continuous glucose monitor, the device is not as accurate and reliable as the standard monitor”
false
” and still requires calibration with a regular blood glucose testing meters every few hours.”
false
“Maybe this is why I am not aware of any diabetics who own a continuous glucose monitoring system.”
True I guess, though perhaps they arent sharing?
” Most insurance companies as well as Medicare do not cover continuous glucose monitoring systems and feel the higher costs are not justified.”
False
“A diabetic should be checking his blood on a regular basis anyway.”
True though depends on the diabetic and how often you mean by “regular basis”
” And if it’s so great, why don’t all endocrinologists have their patients wear it.”
I guess you did some research subsequently
I have a question for you. Several posters have pointed out to you that there are two types of diabetes. Yet you still seem to be fusing them together.
Prior to this discussion, did you know there were two types?
Do you know now?
Wolf
They do.
Keep in mind though the ninth ikkur you refer to is the Rambam’s others disagree
Cheerybim, im sorry but like every comment youve made on this thread you have no idea what you are talking about.
I also love how 2 days ago you never seemed to hear about continuous blood glucose monitors, and now you are an expert.
If you have questions I and I’m sure others here would be mor ethan happy to answer. Dont make asumptions about a topic you clearly know so little about. just ask.
Including heavily reduced tuition?
Dash
that isnt much of a question A hashgacha on an establishment doesnt mean that they oversee the kashrus of every thing inside, rather that they trust those who do. If say the Star K gives a hechsher on a pizza store the tomato sauce might be under the chaf K, the cheese under the hisachdus, the flour under the OU etc etc.
Similarly bottled drinks are either under their own hashgacha which the oversseing hashgacha recognises or the overseeing hashgacha feels that they don’t need one (eg water)
al tashlicheinu leis ziknah
Avram
“I highly doubt that those shittos were intended to kasher the fact that almost 75% of abortions in the U.S. are done because of financial concerns or concerns about disruptions to life/career/etc.”
That is not what the thread is about
From the OP
” But do you really think that the Shittah that the determining factor between personhood and not is birth has no moral weight whatsoever?”
DY
This discussion isnt limited to abortion per se.
The question is, is the idea that a fetus does not equal a full fledged life, an immoral one.
clealry the answer is no, and Ive provided several rayahs to that end.
Including Ubar yerech imo (regardless of context), that a preganat woman is killed with her fetus if she is chayav misah, that there is finacial payment for killing a fetus etc etc.
As mentioned above this does not mean abortion on demand is mutar. Just becasue a fetus is not a life doesnt mean we can kill it, for any number of reasons. (Some of which would probably make Avram sadder than a fetus being “just a foot”, eg some say it is hashcasas zera)
and yes some shitas do apply chavala to abortion eg Maharit chelek 1 97,
Avram:
Regarding the first quote. I was quoting those much greater than I http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=31&daf=58&format=pdf
Regarding the second quote the “view” I’m reffering to is that a fetus isnt a life. which I believe is not an unreasonable view (even if wrong), nor can it be since it is not neccesarily against halacha.
edited
DY
Fair enough, though It depends on what you mean by life support. But that is another topic.
Though there is a difference once the person is alive, then he is fully alive until dead. Whears a fetus is not fully alive while dependent on the mother. IT is like her foot, or yerech imo if you will.
“Are you also unsure that murder is immoral?”
No. why?
I am saying that abortion in society’s view (which is not immoral or unreasonable) and according to some in halacha as well is not murder. (though not neccesarily mutar)
Avram
You finnaly answered my question “Once the head emerges, the infant can breathe on his/her own, whereas before that time, if the mother died, the infant most likely would too.” So the difference between the two in your opinion is that it’s life is dependent on the mother. OR put another way it is not fully alive.
Is that fair?
“Well, I’ll let you debate that with Sam2, because he does not hold that way. If I wanted to chop off one of my arms because I preferred having one instead of two, according to him I’m stupid but doing nothing immoral (i.e., against halacha).”
I would yield to Sam2, he clearly know more than I. But I was always under the impression that purposly being chovel oneself for no reason is against Halacha . I dont see where Sam2 said any different, all I see is that it is not immoral. but may still be against halacha (As to whether the 2 are synonyms, is the discussion on another thread).
“Do the allowing opinions state explicity that the fetus is not a rodef in this case?”
I would have to check inside, I’m pretty sure some do.
” It would seem to me that it could be,”
Thats a big chiddush to me, and clearly not a simple understanding of rodef.
As far as the reasons that havent convinced you.
a. You only addressed one. There is still this: A pregnant woman who is chayiv misah is killed with her fetus inside her. We dont wait till she gives birth. not even a day. If the fetus is a person why is it being killed for its mother’s aveira?
b. Reegarding your response to finacial payment. That is a technical halacha in Retzicha and misas beis din. WE only kill for a vadei issur, since we dont know if the living baby is a nefel or not we cant kill for its murder r”l.
This is in no way similar to abortion for which the penalty is financial. There is no finacial penalty for killing a 1 day old infant much as there isnt for killing a 20 year old person. To sum up:
Abortion – punishement is its monetary value
Infant < 30 days – no punishment (because we cant kill for safek)
> 30 days – misah
Clearly a fetus is in a sepearte category than a baby.
“Our reasoning is quite different, but the conclusions perhaps not so much. “
agreed.
“an we agree that the secular pro-choice “Abortion on Demand!” position is immoral?”
This feeds back to the discussion regarding does halacha equal morality. Of which i am not sure yet.
What I do know is that the idea that a fetus does not equal a baby is not immoral, and in fact compatible with Halacha.
As to where that fact leads you, may be another story.
Avram
Please note you havent answered my question Here it is again:
“why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed? “
You replied “”The halacha does not state that the reason we can kill a fetus when the mother is endangered is because it is not a nefesh.”
Yes because we are note allowed to dammage a body just for nothing. If a person is inconvenieced by his leg, he cant remove it. In a life threatening situation then a fetus much like a keg can be removed. However once the fetus is born (i.e.) the had is out, it is now a person and no longer a fetus (this is the answer to my question above btw) and can no longer be killed even if the mother’s life is in danger becasue you now have 2 lives in front of you wheras before you hasd one.
please note this isnt the only way of understanding the Halacha. But is certainly a valid approach. Namley that until birth the fetus is not considered a person.
“Also, I am enjoying the discussion of these points, but I don’t feel that they are fundamentally relevant to my point, unless you can tell me that there is a valid halachic opinion today that holds we can abort a fetus when the fetus is not at all a rodef”
there are many such shitas! For example say the mother’s life is endangered because of cancer nothing to do with the fetus. Delaying treatment would endager her life, but innitiating treatment would abort the fetus. Can the fetus be aborted, when it isnt being “rodef” the mother?
There are shitas (not all) that say yes. a great source for these shitas and other cases is Dr. Steinberg’s encyclopedia on medical ethics (I dont have it in front of me to provide actual sources at this moment).
bottom line is many shitas hold life begins at birth. Consider the fact that killing a fetus only results in finacial compensation to father, A pregnant woman is killed if chayiv misah even if her fetus is due today.
THis doe snot mean abortion on demand is halachicly sanctioned much as amputation on demand isnt halachicly sanctioned.
Avram
why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed?
Avram
“How does the way the doctor characterizes the unborn baby change anything? “
Um becasue this entire conversation is about the doctor’s intentions
I have encountered people with the exact story as you just a few steps earlier namely regarding Dor Yesharim, intervening with Hashem’s will, preventing life from coming to the world. I assume you dont agree with them, and I dont. And of course to you the two cases are different, but to them our view on Dor Yeshorim is more similar to the Doctor;s than you would like.
That is just a side point though. The main distinction is as Sam2 said
2scents
“You mentioned that you are not referring to the bigger or general picture, yet you brought up the argument of diversions. “
I mentioned the opposite repeatedly, this conversation is about the “medical establishment”
CA
“so where is it coming from (for that .1%? )”
From “a dark and evil place to satisfy their lust”
Seriously though some conflicts even among decent people cant be resolved even with open honest respectful communication. Plus not all medical proffessionals are decent
“secular ethics is increasingly diverging from Jewish values. “
This is a gross oversimplification, in some ways but not others
“…even when faced with a doctor’s facepalm at our choices.”
In those cases explain your choice.
In case this thread gets closed here is my closing statement:
Hopsitals in general and ICU’s in particular are a stressful environment. This is true for the satf as well as the patients. Emotions often run high, and conflicts often ensue. These conflicts can be amongst family members or between the caregivers and patient/family. The key to successful conflict resolution is communication. Of course communication has to be respectful to be effective. IT is hard if not impossible to have respect for those who are coming from a “dark and evil place”. Most caregivers honestly want to do what is best for their patient. If there is a conflict explain your value system and listen to theirs. By no means should you accept theirs if you disagree with it, but try to understand them and where they are coming from it is rarely if ever coming from “a dark and evil place”. 99.9% of conflicts can be resolved with open and honest communication in a respectful way.
That is my main point, all else was commentary.
MAy none of you have to be placed in such situations, and may those who are have a refuah sheleima besoch shar cholei yisroel
DY
Really mischaracterize?
In addition to the great pull quotes from Avram above (thanks)
There is also this “to be free to indulge in whatever you wish, to satisfy any lust” as a driving factor. I’m sorry but I STRONGLY disagree, and while it is nice that some of you are toning down his offensive view, words have meaning
Avram
You are correct about my It above.
CA
It is more than that. I am saying the “doctors who pull the plug” even if wrong, are not coming from a “dark and evil place” nor are they trying to be “free to indulge …and satisfy any lust”
Avram
“Oh, really?”
Yes
“And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, can you not agree that the virtue of wanting to alleviate suffering can be led down bad paths by wrong beliefs?”
Of course! Though that isnt what we are discussing
“And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, this is irrelevant to my point. Good intentions are not necessarily related to goodness”
Fair enough, but Good intentions are deffinitly not relaterd to evil intentions
Syag
“I wanted to point out that 2scents used the word “overload” but NEVER made any reference to which population he was thinking of. You did that math on your own”
Neither did I, YOU assumed what population I was reffering to.
Though to be fair, it wasnt hard math. It is the same population the bulk of this thread has been about.
It seems that my shortening of Feivel’s comment into coming from a “dark and evil place” is confusing some people. So here it is again:
In reponse to my saying
“while they may be wrong it is not generally coming from a bad place”
He replied
“
It is in fact coming from a hideous place of darkness and evil.
While you may to some extent be don l caf zchus and partially view the hospital consciousness as being a mere field of wheat being blown by the winds of the environment and the political correctness accepted as the current avodah zara, still the place this ultimately derives from is the same place that all evil, all isms, all avoda zara has ever come from. From turning ones back to Hashem, to be free to indulge in whatever you wish, to satisfy any lust. All disguised of course behind the license of a statue or of humanism or whatever you call it. Then there is no Ribono Shel Olam CvS, no sanctity of life. Every decision being made only by what feels good and will still leave me in the respect of my local and wider society.
It bothers them to see someone that is much like themselves suffering, so let them die instead. Then we don’t have to worry about our own suffering. Works well. Conscience is clear. Problem solved. Why not? There is no Ribono Shel Olam, CvS.
Maybe this is not always in their conscious thoughts, but It is their true motivation, and certainly the underlying rationale of this degenerate, basically atheistic, pseudo-love society.”
Avram
“If something is against the Torah, then ultimately its source is darkness and evil. Those who hold of those things may themselves not be dark and evil, but the source of their position is. Do you really disagree with that? “
Yes! Strongly.
Wanting to alleviate suffering is not (neccesarily) evil
Beleiving that limited resources are better spent in one way than another is not (neccessarily) evil
Feivel
“But I guess as you say that’s not relevant to the question of the moral status of “modern” society. . “
Remeber it was banned So society is improving!
It is not relevent to the subject at hand it is relevent to the “question of the moral status of “modern” society. . .” That isnt really what we are discussing. It did copme up in passing on Friday, and I responded, that there are areas where our morals are improving (treating minorities, mentally ill, war, and now we can add banning partial birth abortion to improvments in morality,) granted we have a long way to go
Minor quible “Cracking ribs is an unfortunate unintended potential side effect of a life saving procedure.” Not potential, it is definite, in the cases I’m reffering to. But I dont disagree on your general point on this matter.
SYAG
2scents said “overloaded” I repeated it and was careful to put it in quotes, since it was not MY wording.
That you can ask that indicates you have not understood my point either. I am not sharing my view on the matter, regardless of what it is, I put Torah first, as has been stressed repeatedly. I dont get to have my own view.
what I am saying is this:
Those who have another view than I do are not automaticly coming from a “dark and evil place” They may still be wrong but not evil.
DY
I do!
I’m guessing you don’t 🙂
2scents
“However, that is usually when they either have an overloaded ER or ICU,”
that is my point and many of those “overloading” the beds are…
“You are making the point that in the bigger picture healthcare money should be spent for people with a longer ypll”
NO i am not making that point at all. In most of my posts I have been careful to stress that.
“that is not the discussion here, rather how some health care providers treat patients that are not young or have terminal illnesses. “
exactly, and wether the way they are treated is coming from a “Dark evil” place. THAT is what I have been discussing.
And again, the lack of resources is not the only issue, it may not even be the main issue, but it is very real. PErhaps not on an indivdual level, but on the general “medical establishment” level.
Feivel
describing a terrible act in a horrible way doesnt change much. I can do the same about taking a 90 year old pt full of decubtus ulcers pounding on his chest cracking ribsetc…
Abortion is not relevent to the issue at hand as I have outlined above.
Health Of course it is based on PC. Life beggining (and ending for that matter) isnt really a medical question, it is a theological/ethical question. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
I dont get what your refrence adds, It states what I said that ACOG namely the “medical establishment” is ok with or even “promotes” abortions. OF course not all practitioners agree, I never said EVERY medical proffessional favore abortions on demand. Again sorry if I implied otherwise
Health the AMA and ACOG among others
DY
I will read the Teshuva more carefully but does R’ Moshe say life begins at conception?
This isnt nipicking, abortion isnt relevaent to the discussion at hand (like I explained at length above). You brought it up, I pointed out why aside from not being relevant your flaed tzushtel isnt even a tzushtel and you complain that I’m nitpicking
I second Sam2’s statment
DY
Don’t need to be a lamdan. The “medical establishment” does not view life as beginning at conception, thus abortion isn’t killing babies.
Incidently, we dont view life as beginning at conception either. Though that doesnt make it automatically muttar
Dy
Killing babies? Thats the Catholic view. We believe “Ubar yerech Imo” though obviously we don’t allow for abortion on demand.
I gave you a detailed synopsis of how we got to where we are today regarding “old people” and the best you cna reply is “come on be reasonable”
After thinking of m earlier response, I have a question for you (and anybody else who would like to take a satb at it.
The technology exists today to keep blood circulating in a body with no heart beat, we can ventilate a body that cannot breathe.
Putting aside the Torah for a second (not literally chas veshalam, and as a frum yid, I hope you cant completely put it aside since hopefully it has affected your worldview) but I mean is assuming you say that a ethical decision that is not based on Torah is not automatically evil, which I beleive you said earlier.
Should we prolong every (assuming no suffering) life indefinitely by circulating their blood with “thumpers” and Ventilating them with a ventilator?
I assume you reject brain-death, so even if circulation isnt the best these patients would “live” i.e. “breathe” and have a “heart beat”for years to come.
I have follow up questions bu I don’t want to get lost.
(and at all times keep in the back of your mind, that this discussion isnt really about what the right thing to do is or the Torah thing to do, but rather is it evil to come to the conclusion that the medical establishment has)
2scents
“since there usually is enough resources to treat both.”
“that is not true. everything IS tied to money, money buys more beds and more staff.”
I dont really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there is enough money? If so for how long? Are you saying that there is no doctor shortage?
“No doctor is faced with the decision of treating one patient over the other one.”
Thats not quite true, hospitals frequently go on “diversion” sending patients elsehwere due to lack of capacity. You are in the healthcare filed, do you really not know this?
At any rate, this discussion isnt really about individual doctors but about the “medical establishment”
“There are a lot of good people in health care, but some are lazy and uncaring.”
Agreed!
Gamnait
It depends on lots of variables. I’m not sure of the specifics in your (hypothetical?) question. So I’ll share a few thoughts with you.
First and foremost, none of this is what I would say, what I would do etc… I yield to the Torah and it doesnt matter what I think. That is not at all what I have been addressing.
All I have been saying is that the approach taken by the “medical establishment” even if wrong is not coming from a “dark and evil” place. So regardless of what I would say to her, her views are not NECESSARILY coming from a “dark and evil” place.
She may be wrong, but she isnt necessarily evil. (of course there amy be an evil individual here and there).
That said. I dont want to avoid answering your question, but without the specifics, I will comment on your comment on the matter:
” I used to volunteer in the hospital, going around the geriatric ward. There were patients who would sit there with untouched meal trays
because they were unable to feed themselves.”
Unable because they were weak? demented? no appetite? unable to swallow? unable to lift food?
” many of them did not have the time to feed all of their patients before the trays were collected again.”
Whoever said I was wrong regarding lack of resources please read this testimony.
” I did encounter some nurses who did not care about their patients at all. I once alerted a nurse that something was wrong with a patient, and she just laughed me off and stayed at her station.”
Thats terrible, she should be fired
2scents
“since there usually is enough resources to treat both.”
No there absolutly is not. Resources are not limited to $$$. It includes, beds, manpower etc….
Dy
Great question. I don’t think they are related.
The trend towards “less aggressive life saving measures” actually is an interesting one. A century ago none of this was relevent, there where no ventilators, ICU’s, Dialysis etc… Even CPR isnt much older than 50 years old. These advances were all made in a time when medical decisions were made soleley by doctors. The Doctor didnt ask about “code status” or DNI, he or she (by far usually he) would decide if in his opinion the patient would benefit. Even 30 years ago this was a case. The average age in ICU patients has gone up not down over this time! (while life expectancy has increased slightly over this time, its not enough to account for the above). What changed was an increased emphasis on “autonomy” letting patients decide for themselves.
Consider CPR, it was originally developed in the 50’s and is literally a
God-send for those dying due to cardiac arrest. A patient’s heart stops they are now dying, by restarting their heart they can keep on living. With time though it began to be expanded to other patients. Now most times CPR is used it is used for a dying patient whose heart stops because he is dying, by restarting his heart he can keep on dying.
Similarily for ventilators, they wherent originally put in with plan to remain there until the patient succumbed to whatever it was that was killing them. When Dialysis was first made available there was an actual commitee that decided who would benefit from it. (there was a fascinating piece in Life magazine in 1962 about this comitee)
With time as these technologies became more ubiquitous they began to be more universally applied. That coupled with patients and thier familes being offered “everything done” the ages in ICU went up, chrnic vent units where opened and along with it medical expenses went up and up.
There is no secret in that last stament it is well known,non-disputed and been extensively written about over the past 2 decades. The problem is how to reign in costs. Insurance companies would often deny coverage, Surely you remeber the discussion over OBamacare which was partly related to this very issue.
Syag earleir had mentioned diverting funding from elswhere, he suggested libraries, I’m not saying I disagree, but then what? Roads/infrastructure? the army? The problem is as things stand and with all the (expensive) medical advances B”H being made, costs are going up an up.
The tend towards “less aggressive measures” is a more recent one. It isnt quite as old as abortion. It is partly based on the above, in conjuction with the very real suffering that these patients endure.
To make things more complicated, the technology exists to keep people “alive” forever. There are Thumpers, which are essentially machines that do CPR available in many hospitals. We could simply hook up patients with no heart beat to thumpers, ventilate them dialyse them as needed, and keep everybody alive forever. This isnt offered to patients so this discussion doesnt come up. Yet. The way things were headed it was only a matter of time until that had become mainstream.
Would this have been appropriate ? I’m not usre
Feasible? Absolutely not!
What would the Torah say about this? I dont know as stated sevweral times, I’m no posek
Are those who think this would not be a good use of resources, comng from a “dark evil” place? Absolutely not!
I am not as familiar with changing attitudes towards abortion, it may be due to them becoming easier/safer, or perhaps as part of the “revolution” in that regard that is said to have begun in the 60’s. But I dont think it is related to the issues I’ve outlined above
DY
Are you saying if it is not based on Torah it is automatically corrupt?
Incidentally, there are rare cases where the rolls are reversed.
For example, I know of a case where a patient was dying of cancer and the family wanted to prolong his life, as a son was on his way from Israel. The patient’s respiratory status deteriorated to the point that he required a ventilator. The Doctor’s were eager to intubate to prolong life for a few more days, but the Family’s Rav advised against it, since it would not really change the overall prognosis and once intubated they would be “Stuck” since it would be problematic to remove the ventilator.
The Ethicst was flabbergasted, since a key yesod of modern medicla ethics holds withholding and withdrawing are the same. He could not understand if the Rav was willing to withold treatment why not innitiate it, allow the son to come say goodbye and then withdraw. Obviously halacha views them differently.
(This wouldn’t change your over all view, just an interesting aside)
DY
So based on one friend’s stories you’ve labeled the entire medical establishment as having “overall values” that “are corrupt”
I thought we were friends, and I’m telling you the opposite, only Im not basing on “stories” but actual conversations with may many colleagues
The overall values are:
Beneficence (acting in best interest of patient)
Non-malfeficence Z(do no harm)
Autonomy (Patients get to decide)
Justice
Often these come into conflict (For example a patient who refuses life-saving treatment; Autonomy vs. Beneficence) And the medical establishemnt might resolve these conflicts in a way that is not based on Torah (though it often is the smae outcome)
I dont see how these are “corrupt values”
Would you care to elaborate the corrupt values your friend encountered?
Lake guy if you eat chazer half as often as many say lashon harah, that is a wonderful kabalah! Good luck with it
Feivel
“But clearly (I would hope) I was talking about the source of the influence which is the general and rapidly increasing moral decay of modern society and culture.”
This is relative, there are some ways we have made great strides in morality. For example the way we treat/protect minorities (including Frum Jews), the way people with mental illnesses are treated, greater care to avoid civilian deaths during war, avoiding war in general. I assume you agree that at least some of these exampels if not all are the opposite of “increasing moral decay of modern society and culture”
“If you can. “
I’m sorry I cant. I did change my view and no longer view you personally as being of an evil and dark place, you are just terribly misguided, and since it was your comment that got me riled up, and is shared by so many misinfomred, it will come up from time to time in the process of pointing out repeatedly how wrong your view is.
A good shabbos to you too
Syag
“why would I answer such a question? “
Because it is directly related to the subject at hand. The medical establishment that is so despised, has decided one way. The way that has been decided has been described as “evil”
I am not sure why. There are times where “value” has to be assigned to people. Halacha has one way of doing it (actually several ways, as there are different shitos)
The medical society has another.
I’ll bet you have still another (which hopefully would conform to some (though not all) poskim).
“How could I possibly make life changing decisions without the files in front of me? “
It is theoretical, you can make up their files
“When you choose between two patients, and you believe you are choosing appropriately, are you ever sorry that healthcare even demands it of you? “
Do you wish you have two ropes in the scenario that you are having a hard time answering?
Of course I feel sorry, as do most Doctors and nurses (though they may not always show it to you)
“”I can’t believe we are opening more libraries when there isn’t even enough money to keep the dying old people alive!””
its not just dying old people! Its young people too!
There is an orginazation in ISrael called Efrat which for $1,200 will prevent an abortion. Do you have a car? thats about 10 children. Does your shul/yeshiva have a dinner? Take all that money and prevent these murders. After all “Anyone who knows the REAL value of a life would let everything else go while they funded healthcare.” why would preventing abortions be different?
I do sometimes wish life was that simple.
DY
I addressed that above. The criticism was leveled by Feivel was against the “medical establishment” The medical establishment is responsible to deal with the “systemic problem”
As a complete aside. Please keep in the back of your mind that the resources aspect is only part of the story. another aspect is the desire to prevent suffering, and not prolong it. which again, even if wrong al pi Halacha (though it isnt in all cases, is also not coming from an “evil place”)
DY
these: “need the blood” and “drowning”?
I agree they cant be equated, since they ARE the EXACT cases I am discussing. Blood is occasionally in short supply (depending on the type) so it is less lemaseh. If you expand “drowning” to a patient in florid heart failure (Who in a very real way is drowning in his own body) then this is one of the EXACT cases I am referring to
Syag
I’m really sorry, I dont understand what you are getting at with the glasses scenario.
As Ive pointed out halacha also recognises “contribution to society” though in very different ways than society at large, which is to be expected. See sources above.
R’ Moshe has a teshuva in chelek zayin CM (i dont know off hand what chelek CM it is or the exact teshuva number) where he discusses priorities in health care. He says when faced with 2 people the chayeh olam is tended to. Though if already working on a chaye shah, he cant be abandoned for the chayeh olam.
This is clearly giving a “dying old man warrants less medical priority,” (Obviously not nearly in the same way as the medical establishment)
“but it sure as heck says a lot about where he stands in his values as they correspond with the Torah”
Careful! You could be talking about R’ Moshe.
care to answer the question I posed above
“How would you choose? whoever is closer? whover fell in first? Male? Definitely going to survive? whoever owns the rope? whoever will live longer? whoever will do more mitzvos? The bigger talmud chacham Whoever will allow you to save more drowning people in the future? Some other criteria?”
DY
“The fact that you can equate the terms in parentheses with the actual case shows how you’ve erred.”
Was that addressed to me?
Which parentheses? Do you mean this “getting people out of pre-war Europe”?
Please explain the difference between choosing whom to save given a limited number of visas vs a limited number of hospital beds/staff/money?
If you meant something else please ellaborate