Events in a Washington D.C. hospital prove that the divisive controversy over the question of when human life begins is matched by equally complex issues over the determination of when it ends. As a father, I can not fathom the pain of parents watching their child die. And the case of Motl Brody, a 12-year-old Hasidic boy from Brooklyn, NY being treated for brain cancer at Children’s National Medical Center is just such a case.

It is not surprising to me that the family may not be handling things so well. How could they? But the behavior of both the hospital and the religious organizations that claim to support the Brody’s is pretty darn lousy too. And the only reason seems to be that in each case, they put their own ideologies before the needs of this family. In each case, they are battling in court instead of coming together to find a solution that works for the Motl, his family, and the hospital.
To be sure, there are real differences of opinion here about when death occurs, so this is no simple matter. For the medical establishment, and for most Americans, death happens with either the irreversible cessation of breathing or the irreversible end of brain function. But for some within the Orthodox Jewish community, only the cessation of breathing counts as death.
That means patients like Motl Brody, who is intubated and on a “breathing machine”, are still considered alive and that withdrawal of life support would be considered murder by his parents.

Given their beliefs, it is not hard to understand why they object to the hospital’s desire to end life support and allow him to “complete the process of dying”.

It does not explain the hospital’s claiming that keeping Motl on life support “is offensive to good medical ethics”, as they insist in court papers being reviewed this morning. Does that that mean that anyone who differs with them is unethical and or offensive? While I, and many other Orthodox Jews, agree that Motl is already dead, the only thing offensive here is the arrogant use of that kind of language by the hospital.
On the other hand, the behavior of Orthodox advocacy group, Agudath Israel is not much better. Rather than work with the hospital or focus attention on this one case, they have a team of lobbyists and lawyers who have jumped to the precedent and principle involved. Rather than address the issue of one little boy, they are using his tragedy as a platform in their ongoing political battle about when death is considered to have occurred.
It seems to me that each side needs to ask, how it can help this one family and not how to use their experience to “prove” a particular point. This is not about all of medical ethics, it’s about Motl. And the hospital could work with the family to support their decision instead of hiding behind grand philosophical statements.
Agudath Israel likewise, should be figuring out how to keep Motl on life support without taxing the hospital’s resources – medical or financial. The truth is that most people think that Motl is already dead. If they want to continue treatment, it is incumbent upon them to make that happen without diverting resources from other patients, who are deemed more worthy. The sad truth is, that medical care is not an infinite resource and those kinds of decision are made every day.
I know that the hospital can not bear to admit that there might be more than one appropriate definition of when death occurs because it’s to ethically disquieting – how orthodox of them! And I know that Orthodox rabbinic authorities are likewise no fans of multiple possibilities when it comes to these tough issues. But we have more medical capacity right now than we have ethical capacity. It’s not surprising. It takes time for our ethical systems to catch up to the new realities that are created by new technology.
The answer? Take each situation as it comes. Admit that working on an ad hoc basis, taking into account the particular experience of each patient and family will get us better results that politicking this issue. If we open our hearts to the experience of people instead of invoking the rules of some medical code or religious text, we can develop an ethic for the end of life that is as sophisticated as the medical capacity which has brought us to this dilemma and all be the better for both.