Citation

Jotkowitz AB, Glick S. J. Palliat. Care 2009; 25(4): 284-288.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, Center for Bioethics)

DOI

10.1177/082585970902500406

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Israel, like many other countries, is strug-gling with numerous bioethical dilemmas due to its cultural and religious diversity. Until recently there was no legal guidance for how to deal with end-of-life issues. However, in 2005 a law was passed regulating the treatment of dying patients. Its most controversial aspect is the distinction it makes between withholding therapy (which is allowed) and withdrawing continuous therapy (which is not allowed). In this formulation, the law attempted to strike a balance between respecting the autonomy of the patient and respecting the sanc-tity of life. The law respects autonomy by establishing the right of the patient to refuse treatment; it respects the sanctity of life by prohibiting active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. However, this compromise was not acceptable to all members of the public advi-sory body that framed the law. Some argued that there was no moral basis for the distinction between with-holding and withdrawing treatment. © 2009 Institute universitaire génriatrie de Montréal.

Language: en