• Alan B Jotkowitz and Shimon Glick.
• Prywes Center for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 151, Beer-Sheva, Israel 84105. ajotkowitz@hotmail.com
• J Palliat Care. 2009 Jan 1; 25 (4): 284-8.

AbstractIsrael, like many other countries, is struggling 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 sanctity 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 advisory body that framed the law. Some argued that there was no moral basis for the distinction between withholding and withdrawing treatment.

32 keywords...

hide…