A Very Important Question

As usual, Calvin asks the important question. But there is always the possibility of a change of mind and/or heart. Take, for example, a cricket match in Nottingham yesterday. An England batsman was given out just before tea, but after a discussion in the pavilion, the Indian captain decided to reinstate him. He did not have to.

Today's Guardian asks: "Is upholding the spirit of cricket more important than getting rid of an in-form opposition batsman?" Votes are currently running at over 70% for Yes. While I am glad to see such a percentage, it is also sad that such a decision has been a cause for praise and rejoicing, rather than accepted as standard practice.

colin murdoch r.i.p.

the telegraph had this to say about the pharmacist from new zealand who patented 46 inventions including a plastic disposable hypodermic syringe, a tranquiliser gun and a silent burglar alarm that alerted the authorities:

"Murdoch won many awards, among them, in 1976, one at the World Inventors' Fair in Brussels for his design of a childproof bottle top. This device required a digital strength and technique that was beyond a child's capabilities. Murdoch never became a rich man. He declined to pursue through the courts those who violated his patents, taking the view that if the products were benefiting humans and animals it would be wrong to sue. "

it's a pity, but the mold may have been broken when this guy was made. o yeah, and he was dyslexic.

read more about him here.

egg-chasers are kings for the day

ouch.
it was a big day of sport in england today. the football fans had as much interest in scotland topping their european championship group that includes italy and france as a yankees fan had this afternoon in baseball. instead, they cheered england on at new wembley, where they gained a first-half cushion of 3 goals, including a stunning header by an estonian from the edge of his own penalty area. wayne rooney scored his first competitive goal for three years. england won 3-0. again. bring on the russians and their plastic pitch next wednesday!

the less said about england's last one-day cricket match against sri lanka the better.

which brings us to the england rugby team. they were playing in the world cup semi-final. they were playing france. in paris. tens of thousands of rugger buggers descended upon the city whether or not they had tickets. prince harry sat in the stadium, wearing his england shirt.

england are the current holders of the cup, but they were not expected to do very well this time around, especially having been stuffed 0-36 by south africa in the pool a match-up. i watched the whole match live thanks to wembley dave and his slingbox. it was not a great experience, if one judges it by the standard of rugby played. on the other hand, if you are into team sports, something magnificent took place this evening. i watched what it means to be a team. these guys put everything they had into the game. and they backed each other up. i'm not sure about some of the body parts one has to hold onto in the scrum, but i saw the pack joining strength to strength. johnny wilkinson's boot may not have been so trusty early on, but he made some immense tackles. in an interview afterwards, he said that his body has never been so sore after a game.

nu - i'm really not a big fan of this sport. right now, though, i am incredibly impressed by the nature of england's victory. at school this week we have spent massive amounts of time and energy on trying to teach our students about community and teamwork. i think they understand it intellectually, but their average age is about 9 years old so it's still hard to get it in a visceral way. In some strange way, this win by the egg-chasers makes me feel quite hopeful about being a teacher!

btw, the pic is of england's josh lewsey scoring the only try of the game in the 82nd second

when do candidates tell the truth?

how naive is it of me to think that candidates for election should tell the truth and keep their promises? ok, very naive. then where does one draw the boundary with regard to how much spin we will accept? and how do we enforce such choices?

theoretically the third question is the easiest to answer, if you believe that voting can make a difference.

why am i going on about this just now? i found an article in the sunday times online about carl bernstein's new unauthorised 640-page biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

complete article here.

when i was about 11 bernstein was one of my heroes. we spent the summer of 1973 in the usa, and our friend bonnie who worked for the epa took us around dc. the first place we went was to a howard johnson's opposite an office building, and from our seat by the window bonnie pointed out the windows of the rooms where the watergate break-in had taken place. i got totally into politics for the first time in my life. *pause while i rummage in my room*

not a good pic but one of the buttons i bought at the time. o, and i also asked for the hardback "the final days" for my big chanukah present.

scroll forward 33 years. the sunday times anticipates bernstein's latest perspective:

"For years Bernstein suffered from writer’s block, but Knopf is promoting his biography as a triumphant return to form. Publisher Sonny Mehta said his portrait would “show us, for the first time, the true trajectory of Hillary Clinton’s life and career”. It will be published simultaneously in Britain by Hutchinson.

According to the publishers, it will cover everything from Clinton’s “complex relationship with her disciplinarian father” to “her courtship with Bill Clinton and the amazing dynamic of their marriage, during the most trying of circumstances”."

i think i feel sorry for hillary. i am, however, no longer sure for whom i wish to vote. it's like the game show 'the weakest link'. it often does not matter who the strongest link actually is. the people vote according to their perception, and for tactical reasons. how much spin will i accept?

before i had heard of richard nixon, i lived in a world where the president or the prime minister was a good man. we trusted him to lead our government honestly and to the best of his abilities. i also was taught to find a policeman if i was in trouble, and to make sure that i paid the bus conductor even if he forgot to ask me for a fare. that was obviously over the rainbow, yet i still hope for some of those attitudes to turn the tide today. *sigh*

jehovah's witnesses sextuplets in vancouver

catherine philp wrote in yesterday's times:

"The birth of Canada’s first sextuplets should have been cause for celebration. But their struggle for life has provoked a ferocious battle pitching Church against State and a child’s right to life against parents’ rights to practise their faith.

When the four boys and two girls were born nearly three months prematurely in early January, they were hailed as a miracle. The mother, on being told that she was carrying multiple foetuses, had been offered “selective reduction”, a procedure to remove several foetuses to help to ensure the survival of the others. She refused.

At birth, the babies weighed less than two pounds (1kg) each, and measured less than an outstretched adult hand. They were put into incubators but within a week two had died. Doctors told the parents that the surviving infants desperately needed blood transfusions if they were to survive, but once again the parents refused."

the full article is here

according to the way the JW's understand their old testament, and the book of acts in the nt, xians are forbidden to ingest blood in any form or way. one result of this is their refusal to accept blood transfusions.

when i was a chaplain in a new jersey hospital about 15 years ago, there was a similar situation, with the parents refusing a transfusion for their small child. they believed it was god's will and that the child would go straight to god in heaven. the chaplains were called in to counsel the nurses, who were utterly confused, angry and distressed about this. the child died.

the thing is, while i abhor anyone using a scriptural text out of context to justify behaviour that causes emotional or physical pain and death, i will still take a moment to look at it from a textual context.

ok - these guys have as a key text leviticus 17:10:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

fine, that is there. there is more text in the same book, though. who decides which is more important? let's look a few paragraphs later in chapter 19, verse 16:

"... neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour"

in judaism, this is the source of the concept 'pikuach nefesh', i.e., that a person must do everything possible to save the life of another, even donating bodily organs. not only that, but also the commandments of shabbat may be broken in order to save life. unless it will endanger one's own life, we are required to do all we can to save human life.

it is therefore incomprehensible to me how anyone could use text to allow a child to die, for religious reasons. what would that nice JEWISH boy jesus do, eh? 'pikuach nefesh' - save the children! aaaaargh!

a colleague informs me ....

US Supreme Court established three important holdings:

1.. there is a right under the Constitution to refuse medical treatment. Does this include "life-sustaining" care? The US Supreme Court stopped short: "for the purposes of [the Cruzan] case," the Court "assume[d] that the US Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition."

2.. this right to refuse survives the patient's incompetence and can be exercised by an advanced directive or a surrogate decision maker.

3.. States may differ in regards to safeguards that they employ to ensure that withdrawal of treatment reflects the patient's wishes when the patient is unable to make treatment decisions. Every state is different on what courts will and will not accept.

the cruzan case was in 1990 i think, and was the first right-to-die case heard by the supreme court. so the law of the land allows one to refuse sustenance, and if one's wishes are clear, this shall be upheld even if one is totally and permanently incapacitated.

assuming that we believe mr. schiavo, and the courts have done that consistently, according to the law this is how it will be. end of story.

until we live in a theocracy, this is how it will be.
depending on whose theo it will be, i may be emigrating.

turn turn turn

this is some stream of consciousness musing, or perhaps just a first page of exploration. the question under consideration? well, it began with the case of terri schiavo, who is likely to die in the next few days. on the one hand, i really need to think about how to respond to congregants asking me about the jewish position on such a subject. this means checking out the responsa, which look at jewish law, and attempt to present an ethical position. already, i am swimming in water deeper than any i've dipped into before (and o do i miss my daddy - no more can my first response be to ask him what he thinks and feels). definitions of law, and ethics, and morals ... and how they relate to each other. and that leads to the second part. frank rich wrote in the ny times today:

"At a time when government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma"

the rights of the individual within the rules of the community. what is the best case scenario, i.e., individual views differ, and how does the community make a rule that all must obey, e.g., pro or anti abortion. in the usa, i thought the separation of church and state (synagogue, mosque, temple, etc ... let's not go there just now) was an inspired way to deal with some of those problems. i agree with mr. rich that there is a threat, but am currently at a loss regarding how to deal with it.

back then to the jewish teaching with regard to the current question whether or not terri schiavo should be allowed to die by removing the tubes that feed and hydrate her. i turn to the central conference of american rabbis responsa. before reading this, i had a pretty strong view that if someone has made it clear that if they are brain dead they do not wish to be kept alive, then their wish should be respected. as a chaplain working in a hospital, i have counselled patients interested in creating a living will/advance directive. I know (and just checked it again on the phone yesterday) that this is my mother's wish.

so here's a question: what shall i do when the responsum clearly indicates a position different to the one i currently hold? as a rabbi, a jew and a human, am i required to adapt my thinking? is this a kind of teshuva, where i must turn my stiff stiff neck?

the responsum begins with the affirmation of the inviolability of human life, that it belongs to god, that we have no right to take it and god has the final say in its disposal. we do not "own" our lives. thus, suicide and euthanasia are prohibited.

so what if someone is dying already? the rabbis say that they still deserve all appropriate care. what is appropriate? since the law states that it is forbidden to take any action that will hasten death, and if you do so then it is considered murder, then it would appear that sustenance is required, and pain relief a bit of a grey area since morphine for example may hasten death. but sustenance is required.

at this point, i begin to feel the stiffness of my neck. terri schiavo is not actually terminal. therefore, all the more so should she not have sustenance removed. but this has me agreeing with the bushes and all sorts of people whose beliefs i abhor. ow. my neck is sore.

but i am a reform jew ... and a rabbi ... is there not another way to interpret the teachings? the responsum states:

"As Reform Jews, of course, we consider ourselves free to ascribe "new" Jewish meanings to our texts, to depart from tradition when we think it necessary to secure an essential religious or moral value. In this case, though, we fail to see why we should do so. We see no good reason, first of all, to abandon the traditional Jewish teaching concerning the inestimable value of human life. If the doctrine of life's essential holiness means anything at all, it means that we must stand in reverence before the very fact of life, the gift of God that renders us human. And this reverence does not diminish as human strength declines, for the dying person still possesses life, a life stamped indelibly with the image of God until the moment of death. It is an awesome and awful responsibility we take upon ourselves when we determine to kill a human being, even when our intentions are good and merciful. Such an action is the ultimate arrogance, for it declares that we are masters over the one thing--life itself--that our faith has always taught must be protected against our all-too-human tendency to manipulate, to mutilate, and to destroy."

i do not want to agree with the demonstrators and the religious right and the bushes but ow my neck i don't wish to be arrogant either. note - i am not talking here about stopping treatment, turning off machines, etc. jewish law allows that one may remove an impediment from nature taking its course. i am trying to turn myself towards the acknowledgment that to remove nutrition is to starve someone to death.

i hope the link works, so you may read the rest of the responsum yourself. i am off to think some more, and to get a neck rub!

day after day after day

i am back from the first set of interviews. washington state was quite beautiful, although the dirty grey snow back east and the brown stubble slowly emerging from beneath it is not really much competition for cherry blossom on the trees and daffodils all over. i flew back last night, which meant i kind of missed purim. sweeties at the one congregation gave me a bag of hamantaschen (all mohn as well, since i'd ranted about my purist preference at some point during the interview). aaaaah, bless.

i haven't really watched television since august. having been a complete junkie my whole life (i got my own tiny black and white portable for my batmitzvah, and my mother said i did not leave my room again for several years ... and that was when there were only 3 channels), i just never got round to getting cable service hooked up. strange things have happened since then - i have read a lot more books, and they were nothing to do with work. sometimes i go to bed before midnight and turn out the light and go to sleep. i have discovered delphine marcus on wmnr! nu - the hotel rooms i stayed in during the interviews all had tv with cable, and i did watch a bit now and then. i saw the movie 'matilda', which was fun, and most of the rest of the time the machine was on, i left it on cnn. do not like them, but they seemed preferable to the other alternatives i tested. thus, i am now an expert on the case of terri shiavo, if having heard about it afternoon, evening and morning may be a qualification. the main comment i remember is some viewer writing in to respond to the question: should the supreme court hear this case? the reply was: absolutely. after all, we have to ... day after day after day!

the blogosphere is overflowing with comments from all points of view. don't want to clog it up with another blog. simply, two issues for me: that of right to life/death, and the bush family's apparent ignorance of the separation of powers, e.g., government and judiciary, that are at the root of u.s. democracy. through maimon's blogspot, i floated around and landed on this quote from andrew sullivan's site:

"THE HYSTERIA MOUNTS: I'm beginning to wonder if the Republican party will soon oppose the whole concept of an independent judiciary. Just read William Bennett's screed in National Review. It contains the sentence: "It is a mistake to believe that the courts have the ultimate say as to what a constitution means." Bennett and his co-author argue that Jeb Bush should send in state troops to reinsert the feeding tube and break the law if necessary. Screw the science. Screw the court system. Screw the law. I disagree with Jonah that this is a minor spat with no long-term consequences. We are looking directly at the real face of contemporary Republicanism. Sane, moderate, thoughtful people are watching this circus and will not soon forget it."

where are the sane, moderate, thoughtful people? "if you're not with me, you're agin me!" seems to be the message of the moment: if you won't fight for this woman's life, then you must be an advocate for murder; and if you won't acknowledge that euthanasia is morally permissible, then you must be a right-wing religious nut. all er nuthin. one more quote i found interesting:

"QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called "To Save or Let Die." He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology — these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human." - Jesuit theologian Rev John J. Paris, on how the religious right is deploying heresy in its absolutism in the Terri Schiavo case. I couldn't agree more. What some of these people are about is not respect for life, but its fetishization."

again from andrew sullivan's page. not that one must die asap to get to the next level since it is going to be so much better, but for those with a strong belief in an afterlife in heaven with god, jesus and the angels, well ...