GEN41 … in the biblical ethos, only human individuals possess infinite value. In the account of the creation of plants, reptiles, or mammals, the Bible notes that they were created “according to their species.” [this verse] Significantly, there is no reference to the species in the biblical story depicting the creation of humanity. As the Mishnah declares, “Adam was created as a single individual…therefore, one who destroys a single human life is regarded as having destroyed the entire universe.”
Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5. Bering the divine image, human beings transcend the realm of nature and enjoy a special status among creatures. Although the Bible mandates compassion for all creatures, Judaism balks at the extreme formulations of reverence for all life that undergird the agenda of the animal rights movement. The Jewish value-system insists that there is a radical difference between humans and animals. Only human beings are so sacred that they must not be sacrificed even for the collective good. Treatment of animals, on the other hand, is not subject to the overriding constraints of inviolable rights, but should be governed by utilitarian considerations. Unlike the advocates of animal rights, who are so wary of inflicting pain upon animals that they even object to their use for medical research, Halakhah sanctions whatever experiments on animals are necessary to help humans in the battle against disease. From a Jewish perspective, the imperative mandating the preservation of human life and the alleviation of suffering overrides the prohibition against torturing animals. However, all possible measures must be taken to minimize the pain of animals, since cruelty to animals is strictly prohibited. Experimentation on human beings, on the other hand, is subject to completely different standards. The inviolability and sanctity of human life preclude sanctioning any form of intervention with the human body, even for eh purpose of finding a cure for a disease, unless it is believed that there is a real possibility that the patient subjected to the experimental procedure might directly benefit from it. Without such a possibility, even the expectation that a given procedure will contribute to medical progress, which will benefit humanity, cannot justify causing suffering to individuals, who, as creature being the image of God, are inviolable and must not be used as guinea pigs. While there are halakhic opinions permitting a patient to have his consent to life-threatening procedures such as donation of a kidney on the ground that an individual may endanger his won life to save the life of another human being, it is questionable whether such permission may be granted in cases when the potential benefit accruing to others is merely a matter of speculation. There is a crucial distinction to be drawn between permitting an individual to undergo risk procedures when there is a high probability hat it will redound to the benefit of another patient versus sanctioning experimentation when there is only a remote change that another person will actually derive benefit from it. ETHRESP 60-61
SHOW FULL EXCERPT