Federally Enforcing Right to Life

Euthanasia is currently legal in Oregon because citizens there have approved physician-assisted suicide in two separate referendums. But is illegal under federal law for doctors to abuse the prescription power by distributing drugs for illegitimate, non-medical purposes.

United States Attorney General John Ashcroft has challenged the legality of the dispensation in Oregon of lethal drugs, saying it was not a legitimate medical practice. In particular, he issued a directive, by his authority as chief law enforcement officer of the United States, faithfully executing the Controlled Substances Act by preventing doctors from issuing lethal prescriptions.

Last week, the federal government's attempt to enforce this law against the manifestly non-medical purpose of killing people was rejected by federal court in Oregon. It is an occasion to recall both the fundamental evil of euthanasia, and the stake America has in ending this immoral and unethical practice in Oregon.

The Declaration of Independence states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator – not by human choice – with certain unalienable rights, foremost among which is the right to life. If the Declaration of Independence states our national creed, there can be no right to take any innocent human life, not even one's own, for this is to deny the most fundamental right of all.

The right to life is unalienable. That means we may not justly trade it away for some perceived improvement in our material condition, as we might sell the title deed to our house or car. If we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our life. We act unjustly. We usurp the authority that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.

If human beings can decide whose life deserves protection and whose does not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted. Euthanasia treats the right to life as though it were dependent on human choice, rather than on the Creator's eternal will. That is why euthanasia is always the unjust taking of a human life and a breach of the fundamental principles of our public moral creed.

By our American creed, therefore, physician-assisted suicide such as is currently legal in Oregon is a violation of the very foundation of all our civil rights.

In judging the actions of the United States attorney general, we must keep this fact clearly in mind. There can be no question on which the attorney general of the republic has a more solemn obligation to act with principled energy than on the Declaration issue of the unalienable right of the innocent to life itself. The Constitution, and all federal law, has the single and unifying purpose of constituting a federal regime of ordered liberty by which the people, in their God-given equality, govern themselves in dignity and justice.

The Controlled Substances Act prohibits physician dispensation of drugs for medically illegitimate purposes. It is a federal law, which means that its execution in the lives of the citizens of the nation is the responsibility of the federal government. Attorney General Ashcroft bears the weight of that responsibility and has rightly made the judgment that physicians cannot dispense federally controlled substances in order to end the lives of patients.

Can the voters of the state of Oregon decide for the federal government that killing people is a medically acceptable purpose?

The attorney general and the state of Oregon cannot simply agree to disagree on the matter. The attorney general has a federal law and a solemn duty to enforce it. That means that he, on behalf of the sovereign federal power, must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate medical uses of controlled substances.

In the current situation, a physician who is dispensing a lethal dose to his "patient" may say, "I am using this controlled substance in a way that conforms with the proper understanding of medical practice." Attorney General Ashcroft can point to common sense, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and disagree, saying, "Killing your patient is fundamentally opposed to the proper understanding of medical practice, because it is a profound injustice." The physician then points to the Oregon state euthanasia law, passed by the people of that state, and repeats that what he is doing is medically legitimate, according to the people of Oregon.

The question we face is whether the attorney general of the United States should form his understanding of the meaning of federal law, on a question bearing on the life or death of innocent citizens, by consulting the first principles of reason and American political justice, or by deferring to state referenda.

The legal question is clear enough. The interpretation of federal law cannot be dictated by state authorities. The interpretation of federal law is the business of the federal government, and the people who are competent to overrule federal authorities on such questions are the people of the whole nation, not of one state.

But euthanasia is no ordinary legal question. It goes to the heart of the nature and purpose of legitimate self-government. The State of Oregon is attempting to dictate to officers of the federal government an interpretation of federal law that violates the most basic natural – and hence most essential civil – right of all: the right to life. The state of Oregon is insisting, to speak plainly, on federal acceptance of the establishment of a new "peculiar institution."

But the original "peculiar institution," slavery, had already taken illegitimate root at the time of our national founding, and a painful prudence dictated that it be temporarily accepted lest the good of self-government itself should prove impossible. Oregon's new "peculiar institution" is a new cancer threatening the well being of the nation. Attorney General Ashcroft is right to refuse to yield the national conscience to this morbid revival of the right of states to repudiate the Declaration principle of human equality.

There are thousands of means available to you, should you wish it. I do not desire that you use them, nor will I carelessly list more than I have. I'm certain you're smart enough to find them if you wanted to badly enough. You do not need the state to do it, and if you would not have the will to do it without the aid of others, perhaps it means you should not do it at all. Statements are easy to make, and not necessarily indicative of a true desire to end one's life. Only the truly desperate or serious will do it themselves. It's the perfect remedy to weed out those who are simply flirting with the idea, and it doesn't require compromising the profession of those who promised to "do no harm."

The right to life must come first. Period.

You treat the right to life as the sentence to life. The life is the will. You argue to strip me of my will, to force your will on me.

I would feel much stronger in knowledge that no one is going to force me to suffer when my time comes.
I feel panicky now that in the name of whatever it is I will enter a torture chamber.

You do not need the state to do it

I haven't asserted that it should. The private market should work just fine.

if you would not have the will to do it without the aid of others, perhaps it means you should not do it at all.

Any individual confronted with such a situation may very well be physically incapacitated. Remember, the only people who should be considering such actions are those who simply can't go on because their bodies are so far gone, that the only thing they are capable of is bedridden suffering in the short time they have left before they expire. If they were well enough to go meandering around shopping for the best method, they most likely aren't sick enough to need euthanasia in the first place.

I believe it is cruel and inhuman to compel such a physically incapable individual to attempt what amounts to homemade surgery without anesthesia or competent medical staff and established procedures. Brutal, botched suicides would occur, with further pain and suffering as the result. Ironically, it is pain and suffering the person is literally willing to pay with their life to end.

No...its hard to find real meaning to the Constitution when you try to twist it under an unreasonable agnostic interpretation.

No, it's easier for an agnostic to believe in the bill of rights than a fundamentalist christian/muslim, orthodox jew, etc. It's easier for an agnostic to believe in an expansive intepretation of the bill of rights that creates a truly limited state because an agnostic doesn't necesarily believe in a God that demands that certain things be done. It is easier for the agnostic to believe that the only morality the government can legitimately enforce is the right to not be murdered, robbed, etc.

It is not biblically possible for a Jew, Christian or Koranically possible for a Muslim to believe in freedom of religion. It is completely logically possible for an agnostic to believe in freedom of religion. Just one of many possible examples

Euthenasia cannot be made legal without the state being a willing accomplice to suicide and/or "medicinal homicide." For even if it were left to the private sector, as you suggest, ignoring the ethical dilemma of that for the time being, the state would still have to establish rules and procedures to protect people from abuse, for how does one determine if another is "beyond all hope," and not simply another victim of a sociopath? If a person kills himself, the state has no one to punish, and any attempt to punish a terminally ill person for attempting suicide is an exercise in futility. If a doctor aids in killing another, however, he must be held responsible for his actions.

It is just as logical to assume that if their agony is so great that the patient is physically incapacitated, that his mind may have been incapacitated by the duress as well. Like I said, living wills and springing durable powers of attorney are the perfect solution for those in fear their life might be artificially extended beyond their desire for such extrodinary methods to be used, up to and including the treatments of food and oxygen. They can do this, incidently, while they are not in pain, and while their mental faculties are still inarguably functioning. In the meantime, the time on Earth for the terminally ill, absent the life-saving procedures, can be made less painful with the use of morphine and the like, so that he does not feel unnecessary pain.

At the end of the fourteenth amendment, in case there was still any doubt, it states that, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In this particular case, the court had to order Attorney General Ashcroft to quit attempting to interfere with the operation of Oregon's assisted suicide law because it found that the Congress has not even passed any statute which is inconsistent with the operation of Oregon's assisted suicide law. In other words, the court found that Ashcroft had never been given any Congressional authority to support his attempt to prevent the people of Oregon from deciding this issue for themselves.

It is just as logical to assume that if their agony is so great that the patient is physically incapacitated, that his mind may have been incapacitated by the duress as well.

I disagree. While that may happen, I wouldn't assume it in every case. Concurring opinions of a number of qualified physicians should be had before prematurely coming to that conclusion. Deciding a person lacks legal capacity is of great significance, and should only be done within the strictest of standards and procedures.

I submit that a person faced with a terminal illness who holds no real hope of recovery and has nothing to look forward to but an extremely painful and lingering death, may logically and of sound mind come to the conclusion that a quick, peaceful and painless death is preferable. That is unless the person is a masochist or has religious reservations.

In the meantime, the time on Earth for the terminally ill, absent the life-saving procedures, can be made less painful with the use of morphine and the like, so that he does not feel unnecessary pain.

Funny you mention that. The very government that would deprive you of your decision to die, will also deprive you of pain relief. And both for the same reason: Your life is not your own. Due to the WoD, aggressive pain treatment has suffered tremendously, as doctors are afraid of arrest.

We can sit here all day and dream up "What if's". For a real-life example, I urge you to read post #137 of this thread:

Federal Judge Upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law

I think I understand what this court ruled, but with all due respect to the court--which isn't much--it also made unsupportable and unconscionable decisions in Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and a host of others. What the court has said or has not said doesn't necessarily have any basis in the Constitution. Who knows what the Supreme Court would rule... What's more, what happens when a different justices of the Supreme Court sit in those benches?

That requires the complicity of the state. You make my case for me.

The state only decides whether or not you have legal capacity to enter a contract. It isn't complicity because the state isn't telling you to do once you have that right. You might join a record club with your empowered legal status. It's none of their business.

Also, complicity implies a crime.

There is no crime present in an assisted suicide because consent has been given. Its akin to holding a person complicit for rape, when they saw two people consent to sex.

Life is pain. That's why it's worth living. Without pain, we would not know to prize the good

Tell that to someone dying of bone cancer. Tell it to someone who had parts of his body chopped off to keep a disease at bay. Tell that to someone who has an inoperable condition who cannot bear the pain of treatment any longer.

I really do not understand the 'humanity' of a person who can look at another who is dying give them platitudes like that.

Is that how you'd treat a spouse or parent who's pain had become unbearable.

I wouldn't dream of shortening your life if you wanted to embrace the fullness of terminal illness, but why would you deny me or others the opportunity to face death on our own terms?

The fact that you have had a painful loss, in which a loved one was not properly treated, is no reason to license the medical profession to murder anyone they care to, without a hearing.Distortion, distortion, distortion., straw man argument. NOBODY is wanting to do what you say.

You call me a killer and you have the audacity to get upset about being called a lowlife!

Well, I think that you must see at this point that the questions presented by this case concern not only whether or not assisted suicide should be criminal or non-criminal, but that the case also raises questions concerning who should have the power to decide the issues involved. Should states be trusted to continue to write their own laws regarding homicide and medical practice standards or (as Dr. Keyes suggests) does the Declaration of Independence really require that the resolution of these issues be addressed on a "one size fits all" basis by the Federal Government? BTW, you make reference to the variety of justices who have served on the Supreme Court. I don't think that you can find one who has ever suggested that it would be appropriate to use the Declaration of Independence to determine the scope of Federal power in our federal system.

And if homicide laws and medical practice standards are now too important to be left to states to decide, which branch of the Federal Government is responsible for passing the appropriate legislation? When the Congress has not acted, should the Attorney General just take it upon himself to perform this function?

Distortion, distortion, distortion., straw man argument. NOBODY is wanting to do what you say.

What the intentions of the drafters of the law say is totally immaterial. The question is what power is being created by the law. I have accurately described that power.

If you do not like ad hominem attacks, do not initiate them. As many here can tell you, I am a past master at this science, and probably can make things more unpleasant for you than you can for me, if that is the way you want to go.

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.