Presence

"It's easy to reduce someone's pain and suffering to a page in the Shulchan Aruch. That's impossible, however, when that person stands up in front of you."

Not that R' Schacter really needs my defense, but while it is quite tempting to assume that his sterility only ignores the human suffering of the "person stand(ing)... in front of you," in fact what he is doing is recognizing two factors. First, the romantic mythos of "the one" is both foreign to Judaism and quite stupid besides, and it should not be overly accepted. Second, when one is pursuing the path of least suffering, it's unfair to include only the imminent pain of the saris being told that he is an etz yaveish while ignoring the future suffering of his wife ("I don't care if he's sick, I love him.") who becomes a widow at 27, and the kids who grow up fatherless because of a juvenile overemphasis of romanticism over common sense. It's not cruel, it's a recognition of the need for a responsible choice between two unpleasant options. Hopefully, we will quickly find solutions to these and other diseases if and when a greater proportion of humanity gets dragged into the 21-st century and begins to contribute to an understanding of teva. But until that point, it's not fair to subject people to suffering that they could avoid if they only committed to using their brains. And that unclouded analysis comes from the Shulchan Aruch.

Obviously, none of this is to be interpreted as advocating any abdication of society's responsibility to comfort and cure the ill.

I did intend to write in the post that I understand and agree with R. Schachter (again, not that he needs my support in any way). I also intended to write that I understand Mikey's position as well. R. Schachter has the authority to make halachic statements, which, as you point out, express the overall sentiments of our religion (minimization of suffering, etc.). In Mikey's case, the implication led logically to a position that he questioned, not only in regards to himself, but also in regards to others. He had the courage to stand up and confront R. Schachter based on his conviction that this approach was not optimal.

Part of the story, which I am now recalling, is how Mikey phrased his question. He asked about future cases, where tests are developed that can predict well into the future various genetic diseases, such as cancer. Following R. Schachter's logic, once these tests are available (and I believe some of them are now), we should all be obligated to take these tests, and if they should indicate that one would get these diseases, that person should not get married, have children, etc. R. Schachter's premise was that science should be used, if at all possible, to minimize suffering; Mikey questioned this assertion because of the implications it had for himself and others. Where do you draw the line? What if Mikey's condition would have allowed him to live till age 30? If we can discern that someone will die of cancer by age 30, should the same rules apply to him?

The point is that while halacha provides abstract legal statements, when deciding a specific case, many other factors are involved. When a p'sak halacha is rendered, it is almost ALWAYS based on more than just the page in the Shulhan Aruch.

Common sense would dictate that if one knows that one's affiianced has a significantly higher than normal risk of dying considerably earlier than standard actuarial tables would suggest, that one should look elsewhere. I don't know if any actual 'rules' are pertinent, and also, not having been at the original discussion, I do not know whether such common sense rises to the level of obligation.

You have kids - what would you advise them to do?

"When a p'sak halacha is rendered, it is almost ALWAYS based on more than just the page in the Shulhan Aruch." - That may or may not be true, but at least halacha provides a framework that allows for better analysis than emotional over-reaction.

There is an appropriate emotional response, which is emotional support for the distressed. There is an appropriate intellectual response, which is doing the intelligent thing. Conflating the appropriate responses to very different issues is a common and frustrating problem that typically makes things much worse.

Again, it is important to be precise. I am not advocating being absolutely dispassionate, or "treat(ing) life the way you look at an actuarial table." I am advocating the recognition of the need for distinct responses to emotional and intellectual needs. Mikey raised the group's awareness of an emotional need, which is fantastic, but the appropriate response was not and is not to ignore the wiser course of action.

"Giving suffering meaning" is a meaningless platitude. Suffering is there for whatever reason, and one can respond either appropriately or inappropriately. The question is whether one chooses to give meaning to one's life.