From Lisa Katz,
Your Guide to Judaism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

Terri Schiavo, a 41-year-old Florida woman, has been hospitalized, bedridden and unable to speak or feed herself since 1990, when she suffered heart failure and resulting severe brain damage.

Terri’s husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, fought to get her feeding tube removed. According to Michael, Terri said, before her illness, that she would not want to continue living if she were in a persistent vegetative state.

Terri’s Roman Catholic parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, fought the courts to keep their daughter’s feeding tube in. They see removal of the tube as a way of starving their daughter to death.

The legal fight between the two sides lasted over a decade. In March 2005, following a state court order, Schiavo's feeding tube was withdrawn. According to Jewish Law (Halacha) is withdrawal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube permissible or not?

Traditional Judaism

From a traditional Jewish perspective, the feeding tube should not be removed.

If Terri was dying, then Jewish Law would refer to her as a goses. In the case of a goses, no actions should be taken to prolong the act of dying. Thus, there are cases in which Jewish Law finds that actions such as administering drugs or shocking the heart might not be in the patient’s best interest.

But Terri is not a goses. Until her feeding tube was removed, Schiavo was not dying. She was helpless, somewhat like a baby, in that she could not feed herself or communicate in a meaningful way. But, according to Jewish Law, a compromised life is still a life. And there is no reason to do anything to end such a life.

Furthermore, it is not permitted to take any actions to stop the process of staying alive. Withdrawing Terri’s feeding tube is like starving a person to death, according to Jewish Law. Regardless of the wishes of Terri’s parents, husband or even Terri herself, once a person is on a support system, it is against Jewish Law to remove it. Actively interfering with a person’s ability to live – removing the feeding tube in this case -- is equivalent to murder, and clearly impermissible according to Jewish Law.

Progressive Judaism

Progressive branches of Judaism (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) provide a less united and absolute opinion on the debate. These divisive opinions derive from different definitions of the feeding tube. Is the tube simply a form of eating or is it a form of medication?

If the feeding tube is simply a way to provide basic nutrition, than progressive Judaism supports Schiavo’s parents and their fight to maintain the feeding tube. The hungry should be fed, and death must not be hastened, even in the case of a compromised life.

If, however, the feeding tube is seen as a form of medicine, a position held by some Conservative and Reform Halachic authorities, than the best interests of the patient come into the picture. And in this case it is possible the patient’s best interests might be to stop providing medicine.

According to some, feeding tubes are not as benign as they seem. The nutrition provided is lacking and infections are common. The patient can suffer from fluid buildup and digestion difficulties. By artificially pumping things into the body, feeding tubes can cause pain.

Thus, some Conservative and Reform Halachic authorities view the feeding tube as a medical device and believe Jewish Law could rule on its removal if it is in the patient’s best interest. In this case, Terri Schiavo’s legal guardian believes his wife would prefer a dignified death to life in a vegetative state.

U.S. Law

Shiavo is not Jewish, politics and religion are separate in the United States, and the United States is not a Jewish state. So even if Jewish Law views removal of the feeding tube as wrong, Jewish law does not govern the United States. Terri Schiavo’s legal guardian fought for removal of the tube and a U.S. state court ruled in his favor. I wonder how an Israeli court would have ruled.