The Recent Transformation of Medical Liability in Jewish Law

S. Friedell
{"title":"The Recent Transformation of Medical Liability in Jewish Law","authors":"S. Friedell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2123299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Until the Twentieth Century Jewish law sources provided that licensed doctors who erred would be liable only in a heavenly court. Modern authorities, including leading Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, Israeli court judges, and scholars who seek to have Israeli law incorporate aspects of Jewish law, have used a variety of techniques to bring Jewish law into line with Western norms by redefining the standard of care and the measure of damages and by imposing liability for omissions and for failure to obtain informed consent. There are substantial costs to these efforts.Older texts that retain their sanctity do not easily yield to radical reinterpretation, and one is likely to lose sight that Jewish law has its own goals for it sees compensation as a means to atonement, not as an end in itself or as a means of corrective justice or deterrence. The Article considers several other means of bridging the gap between the classical sources and modern needs and finds them unsatisfactory. Drawing on an analogous problem in American Admiralty law, the Article concludes that given the changes in the theory and practice of medicine, radical reinterpretation is, despite its costs, appropriate both for those who want to be governed directly by Jewish law and those wanting Jewish law to be a source of Israeli law. The earlier codes of Jewish law addressed the needs of their time when doctors had great reason to fear that they would harm their patients. Medicine was largely based on a priori theory, not science. Today's doctors have less reason to fear and have a better understanding of the risks.","PeriodicalId":81089,"journal":{"name":"DePaul journal of health care law","volume":"14 1","pages":"441"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DePaul journal of health care law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2123299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Until the Twentieth Century Jewish law sources provided that licensed doctors who erred would be liable only in a heavenly court. Modern authorities, including leading Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, Israeli court judges, and scholars who seek to have Israeli law incorporate aspects of Jewish law, have used a variety of techniques to bring Jewish law into line with Western norms by redefining the standard of care and the measure of damages and by imposing liability for omissions and for failure to obtain informed consent. There are substantial costs to these efforts.Older texts that retain their sanctity do not easily yield to radical reinterpretation, and one is likely to lose sight that Jewish law has its own goals for it sees compensation as a means to atonement, not as an end in itself or as a means of corrective justice or deterrence. The Article considers several other means of bridging the gap between the classical sources and modern needs and finds them unsatisfactory. Drawing on an analogous problem in American Admiralty law, the Article concludes that given the changes in the theory and practice of medicine, radical reinterpretation is, despite its costs, appropriate both for those who want to be governed directly by Jewish law and those wanting Jewish law to be a source of Israeli law. The earlier codes of Jewish law addressed the needs of their time when doctors had great reason to fear that they would harm their patients. Medicine was largely based on a priori theory, not science. Today's doctors have less reason to fear and have a better understanding of the risks.
犹太法中医疗责任的近代变迁
直到20世纪,犹太法律资料才规定,有执照的医生犯了错误,只需要在天上的法庭上承担责任。现代权威人士,包括主要的极端正统派拉比、以色列法院法官和寻求将以色列法律纳入犹太法律的学者,已经使用了各种各样的技术,通过重新定义护理标准和损害赔偿措施,以及通过对疏忽和未获得知情同意的责任施加责任,使犹太法律与西方规范保持一致。这些努力需要付出巨大的代价。保留其神圣性的旧文本不会轻易屈服于激进的重新解释,人们可能会忽视犹太法律有自己的目标,因为它将补偿视为赎罪的手段,而不是其本身的目的或作为纠正正义或威慑的手段。本文考虑了其他几种弥合古典文献与现代需求之间差距的方法,发现它们并不令人满意。借鉴美国海军法中的一个类似问题,文章得出结论,考虑到医学理论和实践的变化,激进的重新解释,尽管代价高昂,对那些希望直接受犹太法管辖的人和那些希望犹太法成为以色列法来源的人来说都是合适的。早期的犹太法典解决了当时的需求,当时医生有充分的理由担心他们会伤害病人。医学在很大程度上是基于先验理论,而不是科学。今天的医生没有那么多的理由害怕,并且对风险有了更好的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信