Page 180 - 20818_park-c_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
1 AnsweR 6 However, regarding the first question, it seems to me that it would
If Hospital A is equal in the level of care it gives to patients as Hospital
B, the husband acted contrary to Jewish law in transferring his wife to
Hospital A against her wishes. She is a woman of apt intelligence, and
why pain her unnecessarily? The words of the Rosh are well known
(Baba Kamma, Ch. 8:1): A patient must have “peace of mind” with the
physician who is treating him. Being that she was wanted to remain
in Hospital B, why should the husband act against the Torah view
and against the axioms “And that your brother shall live with you”
and “Heal, he shall heal?” [See “the benefits of Ralbag” (Daniel 4, the
third benefit) who writes that a person can sense what will happen
in the future.] Therefore, one must seriously consider the view of the
patient when selecting a physician. Nonetheless, if the husband forc-
ibly transfers his wife against her wishes, Hospital B is not obligated
to summon the police, since the two hospitals ultimately provide a
similar quality of care.
What if Hospital B, which the woman prefers to be in, is a private
hospital, where the husband needs to pay, while Hospital A is a public
hospital, where hospitalization is free? It is more pleasant for the pa-
tient to remain in the private hospital, while her husband cares about
his money. In such a case, it seems that the husband is right. Since
Hospital A is recognized by the government and the husband is not
obligated to give his wife the most pleasant medical treatment, he is
permitted to transfer her to Hospital A.
If the husband is a rich man and is able to afford private treatment,
then he should leave his wife in Hospital B. Likewise, if the woman
comes from a rich family and she is accustomed to using a private
hospital, the husband is obligated to hospitalize his wife there.
The source for this are the words of Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha’ezer
#70:1-4), where it says that a husband is obligated to sustain his wife
by giving her to eat and drink from what he eats and drinks. “And
if her entire family is accustomed to more, he must provide this for
her… but if he is wealthy, according to his wealth.”
166 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
be prohibited, because the hospitalization is certainly unnecessary.

Dr. Chovav, Director of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Bikur Cho-
lim Hospital in Jerusalem, commented, as follows:
To the honorable Rav, shlit”a:
The fact that there is not sufficient or maximal medical service in
the framework of the health clinics (kupat cholim) is commonplace.
This is the case regarding medical testing and also treatment. Many
times, the treating physician tries to circumvent the system and to
thereby improve and streamline the treatment. Because of the perva-
siveness of the problem, I wish to address a number of points:
1. In my humble opinion, there is a difference between the dis-
cussion in Tractate Erchin (23a) and our case. The guarantor to
the kesubah did not stipulate under what conditions a man can
divorce his wife. Therefore, the divorce itself is kosher. However,
since there is deceit here, Abayah advises divorce only in a case
where the husband is the son of the guarantor and he is a To-
rah scholar. (Perhaps the explanation is that only under these
conditions did the guarantor take it upon himself to pay even
if the divorce is not for a true cause.) In our case, however, the
health clinic explicitly forbids its physicians to send patients to
the emergency room without adequate justification. Therefore,
sending the patient to the emergency room is not merely deceit
but in fact constitutes stealing from the clinic and breaching the
trust between employer and employee. The patient’s medical
condition does not require referral to the emergency room; she
is referred there by the doctor only so that the tests be done in
the hospital. Is a person allowed to sin in order to benefit his
fellow?
2. The honorable Rav claims that the physician’s first loyalty must
be to the individual patient, and not to a community of patients,
since he receives payment from every individual patient. The
Deceiving a Healthcare Clinic 2 159