A very upsetting incident occurred in Shaarei Tzedek hospital
last week, in which organs were taken from a dying (but not
yet dead) person in order to help others.
This is an issue that is enormously sensitive in the Torah
world — to a depth and extent that we believe is
frankly beyond the understanding of those on the outside.
A letter issued on 18 Menachem Av, 5751 (1991) by HaRav
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l as well as by
ylct'a HaRav Y.S. Eliashiv shlita, was very
sharp and clear: "As long as the heart of the [prospective]
donor beats, and even if his entire brain, including the
brain stem, shows absolutely no activity — that which
is termed "brain death" — with all this it is our
ruling that there is no permission to take out even one of
his limbs [organs], and doing so even involves bloodshed."
The more there is in common between two sides of an
interchange, the easier will be the exchange of information.
There needs to be some common language for the discourse, but
even if the two sides speak the same language, there can be
serious problems if there are relevant differences in
assumptions and values. For example, what one side thinks
"goes without saying," the other side may completely disagree
with.
This appears to be the case with discussions of the value of
human life. Once there was a strong common basis between the
Jewish perception of human life and the common Western
perception. But over several decades the Western view has
"evolved" downwards to a point that there is no longer any
contact between our two perspectives. Since we speak a common
language (whether Hebrew or English) it can seem like we
understand each other. The truth is that, unfortunately,
Western-educated modern people (including secular Israeli
doctors) completely lack a perception of moral absolutes and
thus do not really see our point of view at all — not
even to reject it. It is simply beyond their entire life's
experience.
Our response is, in this and many similar situations, to draw
sharp lines and refuse to allow any crossing. This is the
only effective way that we can express our opinion in such a
way that we may be able to achieve satisfactory results if
our views are given consideration or even if our views are in
control. We feel that we can not say anything more than a
curt conclusion because we can never make our feelings and
opinions clear enough to the other side so that they will not
be subject to tragic, if unwitting, misinterpretations. The
gap in values and presuppositions is so great that these
problems are inevitable.
We note that HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt"l wrote an
unusual response (Igros Moshe, Yore Dei'ah 2, 174) to
an inquiry in this area about heart transplants, which had
been done for the first time in those days. Rav Moshe wrote
that we must be very careful not to even give the impression
that the subject is open for discussion at all with the
doctors. As such, the halachic decision must be expressed as
concisely and unequivocally as possible. "I do not want to
lengthen my discussion with proofs and reasoning and give-and-
take, because I say that whoever brings additional proofs and
discussion makes things worse because [his discussion]
implies that he needs those proofs and that it is not so
obvious [that it is forbidden]. As a result they may come to
leniencies and question the proofs . . . and they will say
that the rabbis disagree in this matter and therefore there
are grounds for leniency chas vesholom. Therefore I
say in response that theoretically and practically it is
clear and absolute and that there is no basis for any
discussion on the matter."
It is especially painful when incidents such as this occur in
an institution that was founded and run for so many years
according to halochoh, with great poskim as its
halachic decisors, and where it is the desire of many of its
patients and staff that it continue along these lines.
