EDITORIAL
Third World Answer?
Ze'ev Chafets, The Jewish News' Israel cor-
respondent, certainly raised hackles in his
old hometown last weekend when an excerpt
from his new book accused Detroit of being a
Third World city.
Detroit boosters are quick to attack any na-
tional criticism of our fair city. It didn't help
our tarnished image to have Chafets' dissec-
tion featured in the New York Times Maga-
zine, so the voices of outraged defenders of
Detroit were heard quickly and loudly.
Unfortunately, voices alone can do little to
change a national image. Debating every
segment of Chafets' assessment will do little
to change the image or, more important, help
the city improve its declining economy, ser-
vices, tax and educational base. Debating the
image must not become a substitute for con-
structive efforts to reverse the decline.
After the riots of 1967, Detroiters and
suburbanites united in an extraordinary
effort to attack the causes of the simmering
unrest. New Detroit Inc., Detroit
Renaissance and other newly-created organ-
izations quickly stepped forward to try to
make a real difference. The late Henry Ford
II and Max Fisher put their money behind
the effort to revitalize the downtown business
district. Ford's Renaissance Center has had a
rollercoaster economic impact, but it has also
spurred development in the area.
But has it been enough? Obviously not. The
city needs a re-infusion of the spirit of coop-
eration and concern that followed the '67
riots. Suburbanites must be involved in all
areas because "Detroit" extends far beyond
Eight Mile Road. An undereducated work
force affects every area business. High
unemployment in Detroit draws state tax
dollars and services from other areas. Declin-
ing neighborhoods and shopping districts
force "Detroit problems" into the suburbs.
And when someone living in Bloomfield
Hills, Southfield, Oak Park or Farmington
Hills travels the country, the answer to
"Where are you from?" is, "I'm from Detroit"
with the linkage to all of the city's good
points and bad.
Judging Judge Souter
Much of the debate over Judge David H.
Souter, President Bush's nominee for the
United States Supreme Court, deals with
where he may stand on one issue. There is
little talk about whether the judge is a strict
or a loose constitutional constructionist or
where he stands on civil liberties or civil
rights. This time, the ultimate litmus test is
one that never stalked a previous candidate:
abortion.
It is not difficult to see why one senator
called this "the most divisive issue since
slavery." True or not, there is little denying
the strong emotions that abortion elicits. But
for an appointment to the highest court in the
land to hinge on whether the nominee is pro-
or anti-abortion gives short shrift to the full
spectrum of legal issues that the high court
will face.
It not only does an injustice to the court and
the Constitution, but also to Judge Souter,
who should be confirmed or rejected on the
merits of his past record, his intellect,
character and judicial and legal philosophy
rather than on how he may vote on abortion.
The Real Purpose
A welcome measure of the success of the
Holocaust Memorial Center appeared in area
newspapers this week. A Probate Court
magistrate and a Southfield judge sentenced
two young vandals to do research on the
Holocaust at the four-year-old HMC and to
write reports on the Nazi crimes.
The primary purpose of the Holocaust
Center is education. The building was not in-
tended to be a monument, but a learning ex-
perience for thousands of children and adults.
It is evident that it is beginning to fulfill that
role.
The additional publicity for the privately
funded museum may serve as a small deter-
rent for biased vandals and to remind school
officials and the public of the HMC's
availability and important message. And the
HMC may help to educate an 18-year-old man
and a 15-year-old girl about the viciousness
and end result of hatred.
COMMENT
Rabbi's Meditation On 'Right To Die'
RABBI DAVID M. FELDMAN
Special to The Jewish Neths
T
he recent use of the
"suicide machine" in
Michigan has
highlighted the "right to
die" debate — more than the
Cruzan case just decided by
the Supreme Court and more
6
FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1990
than theatrical dramatiza-
tions under such titles as
"Whose Life Is It, Anyway?"
Of course, the answer to
the latter question, from the
perspective of Judaism, is
not the one implied by the
sardonic "anyway."
Life is not the patient's to
take, because suicide is as
forbidden as homicide.
Hence, hastening death, ac-
tively or passively, is re-
jected in principle. Neither
is life the family's to take,
because members of the
family are always prejudic-
ed, either in favor or against.
Either they care too much
for the patient and want the
doctor to "try everything,"
actually to prolong the dying
rather than the living; or
they would hasten death out
of genuine compassion for
the patient. Conversely, the
family could care too little,
consciously or unconscious-
ly, for the patient and too
much for ulterior considera-
tions, material, emotional,
or otherwise.
Nor is life the doctor's to
take, as his mandate is to
heal and yields to the physi-
cian's judgment only when
he offers a medical opinion
about health or life or death,
never when he offers a per-
sonal opinion about whether
that life is worth saving.
Hence, even advocates of
euthanasia have opposed the
idea of physician assistance,
until now. This would
violate the physician-patient
relationship of trust, as well
as his mandate to heal. For
this reason, the American
Medical Association has
declined to allow its mem-
bers to administer lethal in-
jections in criminal execu-
tions. The case of Dr. Jack
Kevorkian and Janet
Adkins is especially objec-
tionable because he took no
time to acquaint himself
with her real situation, di-
agnosis or prognosis.
The injunction against
suicide/homicide is not
suspended because of the ex-
istence of pain, or poor quali-
ty of life, or poor prospects
for the future. Incidentally,
a Hebrew form of the word
euthanasia was "coined" in
the Talmud long before the
Greek roots were used by Sir
Thomas More to form the
compound English term.
Even the convicted criminal,
Rabbi Nachman taught, de-
serves compassion. If he
must be executed, give him a
narcotic so he will not suffer
pain as he dies. This is in
fulfillment of "Love thy
neighbor as thyself," which
includes, the Talmudic sage
taught, "Choose for him a
good death ."
Compassion in the relief of
pain is indeed the ethical
imperative. Yet the
Hastings Institute, a pioneer
agency for the study of
medical ethics, now makes
the point that advances in
pain-relief technology have
radically reduced the
number of instances in
which pain might justify the
thought of euthanasia. The
Institute was happy to hear
that, from the standpoint of
Halachah pain relief is essen-
tial; that, while hastening
death remains forbidden as
either an active or passive
intentional act, rabbinic au-
thorities are virtually
unanimous in permitting
the administration of
analgesics for the purpose of
relieving pain, even if doing
so knowingly shortens life.
The intent is mercy for life,
not for killing.
My Catholic colleagues
point out that we are more
liberal than they on abor-
tion, they more liberal than
we on euthanasia. I am pro-
ud of this Jewish reverence
for life, and confidently urge
it on those who must face
difficult decisions of this
kind. Some criticize the ap-
proach as "vitalist," a kind
of mindless respect for life of
even the least quality; but
the point is a profounder
sanctification of life. It
issues from an abhorrence of
murder: Remarkably,
murder of the innocent is a
cardinal sin that requires
martyrdom instead. This
means, at least in theory,
that I must surrender my
life to protect the principle of
not taking life! In the face of
human violence and natural
disasters that seem to
cheapen life, we are bidden
to hold it sacred and in-
violate.
Aside from the high moral
ground, there are eminently
practical concerns. When the
Continued on Page 12