At present, the New Jersey legislature is examining a piece of legislation that will allow for terminally ill patients to choose the time of their death. This “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill” act, a version of which has been passed in several states and the District of Columbia, places the power of choice in the hands of the individual and their family. There are serious restrictions on who may obtain a prescription for this medication. The legislation, A1504 and S1072, allows for a terminally ill adult who is mentally capable, and who has a prognosis of six months or less to live, to ask for and get medication which would allow their life to end if the circumstances that surround their illness, become unbearable. It is not for everyone, nor is it meant to be. It is meant to be a means to provide another option to people and the option is recognized to be one of great importance, meaning, as well as spiritually and emotion- ally challenging. It is a piece of legislation that demands an encounter with the most powerful circumstances of one’s own life. I write in favor of this bill.
The reason for this position is based upon several factors. I am well aware of the positions of several religious groups, many of which are from our own Jewish community. I respect these positions, as they are based, for the most part, on a theological foundation rooted in traditional interpretations of Jewish texts. These hold that our bodies and life come as a gift from God and that the ultimate decisions about our body and life must evolve from God. My rabbinate, however, has been shaped by a different approach. All rabbis, regardless of their training, will affirm that the Torah, and all that this concept represents, is an evolving and changing concept. The differences between denominations rest on the issue of the ultimate authority for our actions as human beings. There are those who affirm, based on the belief in Divine Revelation, that the authority rests with God. Others, myself included, believe that the authority for our actions as human beings and Jews rests within the context of the community. Judaism, I believe, is very much a contextual religious civilization and its power and beauty, in many ways, rests within the belief that we are able to adapt and, at times, innovate new forms of Jewish practice, belief and life.
The choice in dying discussion is an example of how the different approaches exist. As part of my work with Jewish Sacred Aging, we regularly engage in discussions with congregations and organizations on how Judaism informs us on how to make a sacred decision as life ebbs. The mood of contemporary Judaism accepts the use of medication to relieve pain and suffering, even at the cost of shortening a life when that life is ending. That mood favors Hospice Care and Comfort Care. We are encouraged to allow a life to end in dignity and in sanctity. The challenge to us now is how far do we extend that “fence of Torah” given the continually emerging realities of medical technology. How much “choice” in extreme situations can the Jewish community accept? Is it my choice or God’s choice? Indeed, given the changes in medical technology and issues associated with the realities of long term illness and care, it may be time for our community to revisit traditional terms and categories that have been used to speak to the years, months and moments that lead to life’s end. Again, these are not easy questions and, I suggest, there needs to be an understanding that each case may be different, each context unique.