TRR 113-115

THE HUMAN GUINEA PIG

QUESTION:

There are certain medical experiments in the search of a new cure for some disease which seem to require the use of a human being as the experimental animal. Since the purpose of the experiment is eventually to save many lives, is it a moral duty on the part of a man to offer himself as the experimental animal, even though the experiment may involve pain or even danger to him? (Asked by Rabbi Mark Staitman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

The general rule with regard to incurring danger is that it is a duty incumbent upon every man to avoid situations in which his life may be endangered. So the Talmud (Berakhot 3a and Shabbat 32a) says that a person should not even walk among ruined buildings because of the danger of the possibility that some shaky wall may fall upon him. In fact, the Talmud (Hullin 10a) gives it as a general rule that danger to life and health is of greater religious concern than other prohibitions (sakanta hamira m’issura). In other words, one must be more careful to avoid danger than taking care to avoid violating a prohibition.

This general rule, to guard against endangering oneself is, however, confronted with the duty to help or rescue a fellowman who is in trouble. This is discussed formally in the Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 426, which speaks of our general obligation to help a fellowman in trouble, but this also raises the question of whether we may endanger ourselves in order to help someone out of danger. There is no question that we must help our fellowman out of his danger by our use of money or influence, but are we required or even permitted to violate the rules against self-danger in order to save him? This question is discussed in a rather picturesque way by the great rabbi in Egypt of the 16th cantury, David Ibn Zimri. His opinion is quoted in the Pit-hei Teshuvah to Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat law. It is in his Responsa Vol. III #627 (in the Fourth edition, the numbers are somewhat confused). The case cited by Ibn Zimri is as follows: The Pashah told a certain Jew to allow his leg to be amputated or else he will kill a certain other Jew. May this man endanger his life (since the amputation could well be dangerous) in order to save the life of a fellow Jew? The answer was, this is beyond the call of duty.

These general principles governing our question are brought to a head in a modern book dealing with the law and modern medicine. The book is Lev Abraham by Abraham Weinfeld, recently published in Israel. In Vol. II, on page 75-76, he discussed our very question and says that no doctor has the right to subject another person in a medical experiment even though it is intended, if the experiment is successful, to help a certain invalid. As for the doctor himself, he is permitted to expose himself to some possibility of danger (sofeq saqanah) as, for example, if he attends a patient with an infectious disease, he may contract it if he is not careful. But here his duty as a physician is involved. So, too, a soldier in wartime may subject himself to the possibility of danger to save another, since that is his duty. But an ordinary layman may not submit or be asked to submit to dangerous experiments. The author adds, however, that if there is no danger involved, then of course a person may submit to the experiment and, in fact, then it would be a mitzvah. However, Eliezer Waldenberg, in his Tzitz Eliezer, Vol. XIII, #103, wrote directly to the author of Lev Abraham and denies that it is a religious obligation to participate if there is no danger. He says that at the most one may say it is permitted to participate, but that in no sense is it a religious duty (a mitzvah) to do so.