Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.1) Question Concerning someone with cancer which is viewed as incurable and treatment will at best prolong his life for a few months is there an obligation to treat him to prolong his life for a short time during which he is in terrible pain? Answer The patient should be informed about this and asked if he wants to undergo treatment and live a life of suffering rather than die. If he wants he should be given the treatment. However if he doesn’t want a life of suffering he should not be given the treatment. However if he wants to prolong his life to enable him to be seen by a greater doctor or even if it is not a greater doctor but he wants to consult that doctor than he should be treated.
Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.2) Question: What is considered temporary cure (chaye shaah). The importance of defining this is that if the doctor has two patients who have other treatable problems. Preference should be given to the patient who can live more than another year and thus hasn’t lost the presumption of life otherwise he is classified as a treifah. However once a patient is evaluated to be able to live for more than two years there is no difference to one who can be cured. The mere opinion of doctors that a person can’t live does not determine his status. In addition a doctor should give priority to the patient that consulted him first as well as the one who is closer to his home. He if doesn’t know than he should he should make a lottery.
Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.3) Question: A patient who is judged to be able to live only 2 or three months, is it appropriate or possibly obligatory to treat him to prolong his life with a treatment which might kill him immediately or shorten his life? Answer: I know no clear sources to answer this question. Based on human reasoning, it would seem reasonable that he should only be given treatments that at least are clearly not dangerous. According to this it would eliminate most operations both on internal organs as well as many operations on the limbs if the cancer has already spread which all entail a concern for danger. However, there is a clear source in the gemora (Keubos 77b) of an operation which is dangerous but is permitted since there is no other way to be cured. It is possible to rely on the view of an expert doctor who is presently treating the patient even though there is no consensus among doctors and there is no time to wait for another doctor who might have an alternative treatment. However a man who has no clear medical knowledge, his views are irrelevant and everything he suggests might actually cause harm. In the present case that you are asking about in which the patient , there is a treatment that 30% die within 7 days and 10% die within a number of days . That means that without this treatment they would have lived an additional short time, This doesn’t necessarily mean that 60% were actually cured. Thus it is prohibited to give this treatment which apparently 40 % die from. It is permitted only if the doctors claim the patient will definitely die and this will definitely be beneficial meaning 60% are cured or at lease continue living even if in a weakened condition. Even if only 50% are cured it is still worthwhile tp give. When there is nothing better. Even if ths treatment is given. It should not be viewed as the only treatment and continued efforts should be made to find other treatments.
Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.4)Question A very sick person whom the doctors think will live only at most another week has now developed a new illness such as pneumonia, is it permitted or even obligatory to treat the new illness? Answer It is obvious and clear that there is an obligation to cure him of the second condition in that which is possible to accomplish even when the original condition can not be cured. I don’t understand why you think this is even a question unless the treatment might make the first illness worse. If the doctors say they don’t know whether the treatment of the second illness will make the first illness worse It depends whether they give a reason for the doubt. If they give a reason than you should be concerned. If they don’t have a reason but simply they never heard anything or ever saw it discussed in medical books than it has no significance to reject the view of doctors that treatment will help even if these doctors aren’t the top doctors bur might be ordinary people that are claiming the treatment works. While waiting for treatment it is important to feed the patient if he is hungry and to do everything under a doctors supervision. It is therefore prohibited to live in a place without a doctor.
