Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Nov 9, 2014
Rabbis are not doctors, but doctors are supposed to save lives
Some big news recently was the High Court deciding in favor of the Meuhedet health clinic against a family whose baby was born paralyzed.
Meuhedet had refused to cover treatment of the baby, because they said a doctor had warned the parents early in the pregnancy that the baby would be born paralyzed, and recommended that they abort the pregnancy. The parents went to Rabbi Mordechai Eliiyahu who advised them to not abort. They followed the rabbis advice, the baby was born paralyzed as the doctor had said would happen, and Meuhedet refused to cover expenses.
Based on some reports (not in the INN article linked below) it seems the wife got pregnant while on an IUD, which is considered dangerous. It is risky for the pregnancy, and it is risky for the baby. The doctor recommended aborting, as the baby would, based on his exams, be born paralyzed, and the family chose to continue the pregnancy, based on advice form the rabbi. They sued claiming the doctor did not give them all the necessary information they need in order to make the decision.
The family sued, the family won. Meuhedet was obligated to pay. Meuhedet appealed to the High Court, and the High Court now ruled in favor of Meuhedet, overturning the original decision. The Court considers it unlikely that the doctor would not have explained to them the dangers and they need to be held responsible for rejecting the doctors advice.
source: INN
We don't know, from the articles, what the advice from Rabbi Eliyahu was based on. Was it a bracha? Was it advice? was it a psak halacha against abortion? Was it based on a kabbalistic vision? Was it psychological support for a troubled family in a difficult time? I'm not sure it matters, but we cannot comment on it because we don't know what it was.
I agree that Rabbis are not doctors. Rabbis can be approached for comfort and guidance, but they should not give medical advice, unless they have acquired expertise in any particular field (like they should not give financial advice unless they have expertise in those matters). This is not to say anything bad about Rabbi Eliyahu - we don't know what he said. Maybe he gave a bracha, maybe he gave a psak halacha, maybe he just offered comfort, or maybe he gave [bad] advice. We don't know, so we cannot comment on it.
On the other hand, I can say I am surprised that parents are obligated to follow a doctors advice to terminate a pregnancy. I never heard such a thing before. I do wonder if they went to another doctor for a second opinion. Regardless, I am surprised to hear that they were obligated to terminate a pregnancy like this. Advice to terminate can be understood, perhaps, especially if there was some sort of danger to the mother's life (which it does not say was the case), but to turn that to an obligation to terminate?
I fear where this might take us. Will parents now feel more pressure to terminate high risk pregnancies out of fear of how they might later be obligated based on the outcome?
Rabbis are not doctors, but doctors are supposed to work to save lives, not end them.
Meuhedet had refused to cover treatment of the baby, because they said a doctor had warned the parents early in the pregnancy that the baby would be born paralyzed, and recommended that they abort the pregnancy. The parents went to Rabbi Mordechai Eliiyahu who advised them to not abort. They followed the rabbis advice, the baby was born paralyzed as the doctor had said would happen, and Meuhedet refused to cover expenses.
Based on some reports (not in the INN article linked below) it seems the wife got pregnant while on an IUD, which is considered dangerous. It is risky for the pregnancy, and it is risky for the baby. The doctor recommended aborting, as the baby would, based on his exams, be born paralyzed, and the family chose to continue the pregnancy, based on advice form the rabbi. They sued claiming the doctor did not give them all the necessary information they need in order to make the decision.
The family sued, the family won. Meuhedet was obligated to pay. Meuhedet appealed to the High Court, and the High Court now ruled in favor of Meuhedet, overturning the original decision. The Court considers it unlikely that the doctor would not have explained to them the dangers and they need to be held responsible for rejecting the doctors advice.
source: INN
We don't know, from the articles, what the advice from Rabbi Eliyahu was based on. Was it a bracha? Was it advice? was it a psak halacha against abortion? Was it based on a kabbalistic vision? Was it psychological support for a troubled family in a difficult time? I'm not sure it matters, but we cannot comment on it because we don't know what it was.
I agree that Rabbis are not doctors. Rabbis can be approached for comfort and guidance, but they should not give medical advice, unless they have acquired expertise in any particular field (like they should not give financial advice unless they have expertise in those matters). This is not to say anything bad about Rabbi Eliyahu - we don't know what he said. Maybe he gave a bracha, maybe he gave a psak halacha, maybe he just offered comfort, or maybe he gave [bad] advice. We don't know, so we cannot comment on it.
On the other hand, I can say I am surprised that parents are obligated to follow a doctors advice to terminate a pregnancy. I never heard such a thing before. I do wonder if they went to another doctor for a second opinion. Regardless, I am surprised to hear that they were obligated to terminate a pregnancy like this. Advice to terminate can be understood, perhaps, especially if there was some sort of danger to the mother's life (which it does not say was the case), but to turn that to an obligation to terminate?
I fear where this might take us. Will parents now feel more pressure to terminate high risk pregnancies out of fear of how they might later be obligated based on the outcome?
Rabbis are not doctors, but doctors are supposed to work to save lives, not end them.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Rafi, I saw this article in English in a couple places and it literally seems unbelievable. Whatever your thoughts on abortion are it doesn't make sense that the kupa could refuse to insure a baby. It's not the baby's fault that the parents refused to abort. I wonder if perhaps there was a misreading of the case. It's really long and I don't know if I fully understood either but I think that the parents were suing Meuchedet and wanted more than just insuring the baby. They wanted the kupa/dr/hospital to pay for damages and not just to insure the baby. Feel free to read the case and let me know what you think - http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/12/160/074/e12/12074160.e12.pdf
ReplyDeletethanks. I'll take a look
DeleteCrazy stuff
ReplyDeleteThe Arutz Sheva article is completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteFar as I can tell, the parents were suing for wrongful birth, saying it was the Kuppah's fault that they hadn't aborted. They were seeking malpractice damages. Kuppah never said they wouldn't provide health care, onlly that they weren't at fault for the baby's having been born.
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-355735-00.html
that's funny because I looked for some other arrticles to try to get more details and everything I found was based on the arutz 7 article. Only later did I see some other articles about it without mention of arutz 7
DeleteSo, be the first blog to post a correct version.
Deletethis version is very similar to the arutz 7 version, with just a couple of details that didnt appear in Arutz7 (such as what the risk was). I'll add it to the post, but the Arutz 7 article wasnt wrong, according to this, just not as complete.
DeleteThe link above, from David, has the actual court decision. I am looking at it but I doubt I'll have energy or interest to make it through the entire 44 pages of legalese
No difference between the parents' saying "We're being punished because we chose to listen to our Rabbi and not abort" vs their saying "We would have aborted had you told us"?
DeleteNo difference between the Kupah's saying "You're on your own and we refuse him as a patient" because you didn't abort like we told you to and their saying "We'll treat him just as we would any other sick child, but don't tell us we're guilty of malpractice and owe you millions in damages"?
Please correct this- The Arutz 7 article was most definitely wrong. I sent a message to Arutz 7 a number of days ago but they are not really journalists so the idea that they would correct it is probably a non-starter. It makes it seem that Meuhedet can decide not to treat disabled babies. This is not true at all. What this was is a "wrongful birth" malpractice claim. Parents claimed that they did not abort because the doctor did not provide clear and complete information regarding the fetus's condition. The HCJ rejected the claim in part because they acted based on consultation with a Rabbi, not based on supposedly misleading information from the doctor.
ReplyDeleteI added a paragraph in the middle clarifying this. Thanks
ReplyDeleteYou make it seem that the Kupah was trying to get out of covering treatment they would have given to anyone else and the parents are now stuck.
ReplyDeleteWasn't the case that the parents were accusing the Kuppah of malpractice, suing for wrongful birth, and asking that the Kuppah provide care they would not have offered to any other paralyzed child?
And, why are you still saying that the parents were pressured to abort by doctors who knew thei child would be paralyzed when the parents clain is the opposite: That they WOULD have aborted, had the doctor told them to?
as far as I understand, it seems thats exactly what they are claiming
ReplyDeleteThe dispute was whether the doctor had properly informed them of the risks.
ReplyDeleteThe parents say he did not, as is evident by their decision to not abort.
The Kupah responded that the parents' decision to not abort doesn't demonstrate that the doctor failed to inform and that the parents' decision was not based on their doctor's negligence, but on their deciding to ignore the doctor and rely instead on a Rabbi.
Again, the parents claim they would have aborted, had the doctor properly informed them.
The decision does pressure parents to abort, but means that they can't ignore the doctor and then sue for malpractice.
Last sentence above should read:
ReplyDeleteThe decision does NOT pressure parents to abort, but means that they can't ignore the doctor and then sue for malpractice..