Posted on 04/22/2002 7:28:24 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
Bump.
If you want to start killing people, hire a hit man. Should this practice be established, it will end up with Doctors killing anyone whom someone pays them to kill, then saying that the victim requested it, and qualified under the law. I prefer my hitmen to work for the Mob, not at a hospital.
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
A) You seem to hold doctors in very low esteem, equating them with paid hit men.
B) You refuse to allow a terminal patient the ability to manage his own demise.
I really wouldn't wish upon you the experience of a terminally ill relative begging for relief from pain and the indignities associated with not being allowed to die. (Yes, they revived him even with a written DNR order.)
The main opposition on the human level seems the fear that once established the mercy killing might be ill-used and eventually be used on the very people whos judgement is currently asked and who, in their youthful denial of death, want to "protect" themselves from being "killed".
This reminded me of a conversation I had a long time ago with my Black co-worker. The discussion was that Black people evolved longer in the natural environment and therefore are phisically stronger, with better bodies. He would not allow this conversation grow - it was racist, it might lead to conclusion that Blacks are different from Whites and therefore not equal. It did not matter to him that the idea had some merit and deserved an analysis - to him the idea was a taboo as it could be used to segraate. He was probably right as it was his experience.
Both ideas seem to meet the same challenge - one would rather let thousands of people suffer than risk the possibility of the mis-use. What it all means is that the current society is not yet ready for moral decision of such kind.
What I find remarkable is that Dr. Keyes does not make reference to any constitutional provision as a source of Federal power for the statute (Controlled Substances Act) and then doesn't even concern himself with the particular language of the statute.
Instead, he apparently thinks it enough that the U.S. Government is protecting the "unalienable" right to life that is described in the Declaration of Independence. That approach may work for him today on this issue, but he might find it troublesome if others were to view the U.S. Government's power to include the protection of the "unalienable" "pursuit of Happiness" that is also in the Declaration of Independence. This Declaration of Independence approach to the scope of Federal power is way beyond both FDR and Roe v. Wade.
So, I guess you would abolish the FDA and let each state make their own decisions on matters relating to medical drugs and interstate commerce.
You do owe him an explanation of the basis for your rights. If not from the Creator then is it from the will of the majority or what each differing individual says it is?
The "right to life" is retained by the people, not the State, since it is individuals who have lives. You would have a better claim that States not allowing physician assisted suicide are violating the Constitution.
Constitutionally, the federal government lacks a general police power. Because of this, the federal government doesn't even have jurisdiction over actions universally recognized as crimes such as murder or rape, and there certainly is no right to commit those things.
Furthermore, rights are not violated when an individual gives consent.
If you enter a person's house without their consent, the crime is trespassing.
If you have sex with another person without their consent, the crime is rape.
If you take another's property without their consent, the crime is theft.
If you kill another person without their consent, the crime is murder.
A person most certainly retains rights against trespass, theft, rape and murder, however once consent is given, the right is not violated.
Ironically, in the name of rights, the state is depriving a person of their right, the right to consent.
My take on the purpose of the article is to show that even the most esteemed conservatives can sound like liberals where states rights are concerned, so long as the central government is doing something they happen to like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.