Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on Human Vulnerability and the Rabbinic Perspective on Medical Ethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Religious Perspectives on Human Vulnerability in Bioethics

Part of the book series: Advancing Global Bioethics ((AGBIO,volume 2))

  • 544 Accesses

Abstract

Like care and responsibility, the value of human vulnerability has the intuitive appeal of an old truth even though the concept is relatively new and its meanings far from being elucidated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Maimonides does not use the concept of “nature” which was not known in Jewish law and thought. He writes that “this is the way of the world (םלוע לש וכרד ךכ).” It is not clear that he meant to say that killing aggressors, even when innocent, is “natural” [whenever this is the only reasonable means to divert the lethality of the aggression]. Although Thomas Aquinas does not discuss life-saving abortions, he elaborates on the permissibility of self-defense (Summa Theologica, II-II q.64.a7). Thomas constructs it on three moral arguments – the “principle of double effect” (actually, only later would Thomas’ words be recognized as constitutive of the “principle”), the “natural” drive of self-preservation, and Christian “Charity” (in 22 64.6 he explains that charity compels the duty to protect one’s own life. See also Renick 1994). It follows that both Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas permit some form of direct killing by the invocation of “the natural” and by a very peculiar, even counter-intuitive conceptualization of “charity” or “mercy.” However, whereas Maimonides explicitly permits lethal self-defense even against innocent threats (e.g. the unborn child who poses a risk to the life of the mother), Thomas’s position on this very point is unclear. Thomas requires that the death of the aggressor be “outside the intention” of the defender, who should only think about the reasonable force required to repel the lethal attack. Whether awareness of the culpability or innocence of the aggressor should be within the awareness of the defender is an open question. See also Barilan 2012a pp. 212–220.

References

  • Ainslie, G. 2001. Breakdown of will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, G. L., and P. J. Devlieger. 1999. The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Sciences and Medicine 48:977–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avraham, A. S. 1997. Nishmat Aavrham, 5 vols. Jerusalem: Falk-Schlesinger Institute. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, J. R., and M. C. Tilton. 1994. Life satisfaction and well-being measures in ventilator assisted individuals with traumatic tetraplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 75:626–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, K. K. 1997. Once a rapist? Motivational evidence and relevancy in rape law. Harvard Law Review 110:563–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barialn, Y. M. 2009/2010. Her pain prevails and her judgment respect: Abortion in Judaism. Journal of Law and Religion 25:97–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barilan, Y. M. 2012a. Human dignity, human rights and responsibility: The new language of global bioethics and bio-law. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barilan, Y. M. 2012b. From hope in palliative care to hope as a virtue and a life skill. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology 19:165–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barilan, Y. M. 2014. Jewish bioethics: Rabbinic law and theology in their social and historical context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. 2010. The politics of happiness: What governments should learn from the new research on well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, J. R. 1932. Baptism of the infant and fetus: An outline for the use of doctors and nurses. Dubuqe: M.J. Knippel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., and C. D. Batson. 1973. From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27:100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. 1970. How is weakness of the will possible? In L. Foster and J. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein M. 1985. Responsa “Igrot Moshe,” vol. 7. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108:814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M., and P. F. Levin. 1972. Effect of feeling good on helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21:384–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavka, G. 1983. Hobbes’s war of all against all. Ethics 93:291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, E. B., and N. A. Christakis. 2001. Prognostic disclosure to patients with cancer at the end of life. Annals of Internal Medicine 134:1096–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Offer, A. 2006. The challenge of affluence: Self-control and well-being in the United States and Britain since 1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plass, E. D. 1932. Forceps and cesarean section. White house conference on child health and protection, 215–247, New York: The Century.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H. 2000. The science of self-control. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renick, T. M. 1994. Charity lost: Secularization and the principle of double effect in the just war tradition. The Thomist 58:426–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, G., and L. A. Gaitini. 2002. Treating acute anemia in a Jehovah’s witness in Israel: An innovative approach to a medical and legal challenge. Medicine and Law 21:485–492.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported in part by a grant from The Israeli Scientific Foundation (ISF 197/10). This work is dedicated to my youngest child, Mario Benjamin, born only a few months ago, my vulnerable strength—ןימינב

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Yechiel Michael Barilan

Authors
  1. Yechiel Michael Barilan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yechiel Michael Barilan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ateneo Pontificio Regina Apostolorum, School of Bioethics, Rome, Italy

    Joseph Tham

  2. Ateneo Pontificio Regina Apostolorum, School of Bioethics, Rome, Italy

    Alberto Garcia

  3. UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights, Rome, Italy

    Gonzalo Miranda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barilan, Y. (2014). Reflections on Human Vulnerability and the Rabbinic Perspective on Medical Ethics. In: Tham, J., Garcia, A., Miranda, G. (eds) Religious Perspectives on Human Vulnerability in Bioethics. Advancing Global Bioethics, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8736-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation