The article is devoted to the analysis of the approaches of Jewish religious law (Halakha) and the European legal tradition to the regulation of the end of life, agony and the admissibility of medical intervention. The initial normative basis of the study is the prescriptions of the Written Torah, in particular the prohibition of taking life and the impetus for choosing life, which are further developed in the Halachic tradition. Based on halakhic sources, the works of rabbis M. Feinstein, A. Steinberg, F. Rosner and other researchers, the fundamental concept of the infinite value of life is revealed, according to which any conscious acceleration of death is a prohibited act. Even in the case of a serious incurable illness, a person is considered fully alive, and the moment of his death belongs exclusively to God’s determination. At the same time, Halakha allows the termination of excessive or ineffective medical interventions that have no therapeutic purpose and only continue the process of agony, but does not allow any actions aimed at actively causing death. The European legal tradition, in particular the French model of continuous deep sedation and the practice of the ECtHR in the cases of Lambert v. France and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, demonstrates a similar logic: the right to dignity at the end of life is not identified with the “right to die”, but consists in ensuring that a person is not forcibly kept in a state of prolonged agony by means of interventions without therapeutic benefit. The ECtHR clearly distinguishes between active actions that intentionally cause death (which remain unacceptable) and the cessation of supportive therapy in cases where it is not in the patient’s best interests. The article concludes that there is a conceptual affinity between Halacha and European law: both systems proceed from the presumption of absolute respect for life, do not recognize active euthanasia as a form of personal autonomy and allow the possibility of terminating disproportionate treatment subject to a responsible, procedural and considered decision, the central value of which is human dignity.

Journal articles

1. Baeke G, Wils J P, Broeckaert B, ‘“There is a Time to be Born and a Time to Die” (Ecclesiastes 3:2a): Jewish Perspectives on Euthanasia’ [2011] 50(4) J Relig Health 778–795 https://doi. org/10.1007/s10943-011-9465-9.

2. Rosner Fred, ‘Jewish Perspectives on Death and Dying’ [1991] II(1) Jewish Medical Ethics January 39.

3. Badyda A, ‘Kinets zhyttia i mezhi prava: fenomen hlybokoi sedatsii u Frantsii’ [2025] 1 Pravo i suspilstvo 850–851 https://doi.org/10.32842/2078-3736/2025.1.124 (in Ukrainian). Encyclopedias and dictionaries

4. Steinberg A, ‘Jewish medical ethics’, In Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics. Vol. 6 (Schlesinger Institute 1998) 634.

5. Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy: v 11 t. T. 1: A–V (I Bilodid (red), Naukova dumka 1970) (in Ukrainian). Websites

6. Cohen K R, Loewy Z G, Rumore M M, ‘End-of-Life Care: Law, Ethical Principles, and Jewish Medical Ethics’ (Annals of Long-Term Care, August 2018) (accessed 27.03.2026).

7. Deuteronomy 30:19 (accessed 27.03.2026).

8. Ganzfried, S. (1864). Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Chapter 193 (accessed 27.03.2026).

9. Maimonides. (12th century). Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Rotzeach u-Shmirat Nefesh (accessed 27.03.2026).

10. Moshe ben Dovid Feinstein, Igros Moshe, vol 7 (Bnei Brak 1985) (accessed 27.03.2026).

11. Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/339 (accessed 27.03.2026).

12. Torah: Exodus 20:13 (accessed 27.03.2026). pravoua.com.ua 38 Мар’яна Гартман