Jotkowitz Alan B, Glick Shimon
Prywes Center for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 151, Beer-Sheva, Israel 84105.
J Palliat Care. 2009 Winter;25(4):284-8.
Israel, 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.
与许多其他国家一样，以色列因其文化和宗教的多样性而面临众多生物伦理困境。直到最近，对于如何处理临终问题仍没有法律指导。然而，2005年通过了一项法律，对临终患者的治疗进行规范。其最具争议的方面是它对停止治疗（被允许）和撤销持续治疗（不被允许）所做的区分。在这种表述中，该法律试图在尊重患者自主权和尊重生命神圣性之间取得平衡。该法律通过确立患者拒绝治疗的权利来尊重自主权；通过禁止积极安乐死和医生协助自杀来尊重生命神圣性。然而，制定该法律的公众咨询机构的所有成员都不接受这种妥协。一些人认为，停止治疗和撤销治疗之间的区分没有道德依据。
