Posted on 04/22/2002 7:28:24 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
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.
You're confusing the right to life with the right to liberty.
Fine then, that is the way you want to play, we will play by your rules.
The question then arises as to what drives your fascination and love of death. I have no reason to think that this is true, but an investigation might discover that this is because of your need for corpses to serve as love objects. Should you be one of those who need to embrace those at room temperature, and who love to feel flesh rippling with the motions of maggots underneath the skin, your desire to increase the supply of the dead, to serve your physical needs would be easier to understand.
I'm promoting the idea that a person can and should make their own decisions about how they live their lives, and when appropriate, end it.
You are about control of other people's lives as are the Leftists and as were the pharisees and saducees. The need to control others usually betrays deep seated self loathing and self distrust. You exemplify both.
I thought you said you were a master at this when all you are is a baiter.
The fact is we were discussing whether your well-motivated legislation, in the world of corrupt and grasping men would lead to abuses, including the murder of protesting victims, as currently happens in the Netherlands, the first place this sort of law was enacted. Unstead of arguing the facts or the law, you made an ad-hominem attack on my motives, to which I responded. If you wish now to refrain from this sort of thing, and conduct a civil debate, I am agreeable.
I respond to posts in the spirit in which they are made.
When you prefer to see someone suffer to allowing them the abilty to manage their own demise, I not only question your motives, I question your humanity since only God's arch-enemy and his minions thrive on suffering.
You defend needless suffering by the patient and the family by calling me a killer and necrophiliac,neither of which I have advocated. Pathetic and lame.
I really don't care how you respond, your threats don't scare me.
The fourteenth is the only one that mentions a restriction on any type of government, specifically the state. The fifth mentions no type of government, but only the freedoms and rights that the federal government has been charged to protect. One of those is life. I've read plenty of books on Constitutional law, not all of which agree with each other. Therefore I've resorted to the fairly unsophisticated practice of recognizing that "is" means "is." In other words, "No person shall...be deprived..." means just that, and not, "Government shall not deprive anyone..." etc. The idea that we need alleged scholars to tell us what the Constitution means when its language is clear is an affront to the entire concept of self-government
Laws made on the assumption that everyone is good and pure of heart and would never profit at this expense of another are unamerican at best, and murderous in effect. They are the sort of laws that were passed in Nazi Germany, and I do not intend well-intentioned fools like you to stick me in a gas chamber.
The Declaration of Independence has no more to do with allocating duties or powers to the Federal Government than does the Gettysberg Address, the novel Tom Sawyer, or Bill Clinton's first inaugural address. In this country, we have chosen to organize our Federal Government and to limit its powers by way of a written Constitution. If you feel that the states have become too powerful and that the Federal Government is without adequate powers and influence, the Constitution even includes procedural means (Article V) by which it can be amended.
In this particular case, the court found that Congress had not authorized the Attorney General to utilize the Control Substances Act as a Federal weapon with which to interfere with Oregon's assisted suicide law. In that regard, the judge pointed out that in 1998 and again in 1999, the Congress considered amending the Controlled Substances Act so as to enable the Attorney General to use it as a weapon against assisted suicide laws, but that on both occasions the efforts failed. Rather than again seeking Congressional approval, Attorney General Ashcroft decided that he didn't need (read couldn't get) any additional or specific Congressional approval and so he just declared that he already had Congressional approval and proceeded on his own to disrupt the operation of Oregon's law. The judge simply ordered him to stop.
This is not a case of the "state authorities" dictating to the Federal Government "the interpretation of federal law." Attorney General Ashcroft's efforts have been thwarted by an "interpretation of the federal law" by a member of the Federal Government's own judicial branch.
Ditto.
This is the type of scenario that helps focus the nature of rights. It is a public policy question in addition to a moral issue. I think it is relevant because the state, which is really "we" has the obligation and duty to enforce such court judgments. So "we" are involved in this action throught the instrument of the state. The whole power of the state, which is in the final analysis is nothing but power, will be brought to bear to whatever extent necessary to force the good doctor to pay for reneging on his promise to kill the patient.
So my point is that the "private" decision of the patient to have his doctor kill him is potentially not so private. It makes all of us complicit through the instrument of the state. There are a whole host of public policy issues that arise because of the allowance of this type of killing. What are the unintended consequences of the allowance? We can't even tell what all those consequences are. Will Medicare (we) pay for these killings? Will these killings always be "voluntary"? (I think of the "voluntary" income tax here)What effect does killing have on the medical profession?, etc.
[Note to self: Does God forbid this type of killing? If there is a God, and he is the source of rights, and he forbids this type of killing, then there is no right to do it. This question involves a distinction between actively killing someone and allowing a person who is dying to die, and it also means that if God does forbid it then suicide is still murder, that is, murder of one's self, because God has not granted his consent for it. If such is the case such acts would have to be considered inherently abusive and murderous. If God the Creator forbids it, then he has probably got a good reason for it, and then it is reasonable to assume that enforcement of such contracts is not going to turn out to be very good public policy.]
Theological consideration may not matter a hill of beans to you, and that's fine with me. Your ultimate allegiance may be totally to yourself as the final arbiter of truth apart from God, and that is none of my business. But public policy does matter a whole lot to a whole lot of people who may not want to be enforcing or paying for or involved in any way what they believe is anathema to God, and consequently what will prove to be very bad public policy in real, concrete, practical terms.
As another aside, I realize that you may be solicitous for the welfare of children, but I think that not every parent and not every court always without exception acts in the best interest of a child. They have the moral and legal obligation to do so, but sometimes as we all know, they sometimes fail in that obligation. So while I'm glad you do have that concern, I think you should be aware, even assuming that this type of killing is not inherently abusive and murderous, that your concern alone will not prevent the snowballing of further abuses should public policy follow this course.
Cordially,
I would hardly lump all of those together, because obviously they have various levels of significance to our nation. The DOI has much to do with allocating duties or powers to the Federal Government, as it is the document, formulated to correspond with our independence, which articulated the principles behind our separating from Britain and having a Federal Government of our own in the first place. Neither the Gettysburg address nor any of Twain's novels can make any such claim. Without an independent nation, there would be no federal government. Therefore your argument that it has "no more to do with" allocating powers to the federal government is specious at best.
The rest of your argument, as is part of the court's, raises valid concerns but is unconvincing. Specifically, you mention attempts to modify the statute to specify the medicinally illegitimate use of a controlled substance to purposefully kill someone else. While you and the court acknowledge that the current Congress could not pass the amendment, it ignores the question of whether or not those who passed it felt, given the term "medicinally legitimate," was even necessary. You know as well as I that the courts have ruled pretty incomprehensively over the history of our nation, and has so often exceeded the powers granted it that it has become the norm rather than the exception. In this case, their ruling is inconsistent with itself. Only if it ruled against the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act could they legitimately claim that Oregon has the authority to determine what is medicinally legitimate. Instead, what happened is that the court has allowed the state to determine the meaning of a federal statute independent of anyone else. A federal statute without the means of interpreting and executing its provisions is not a federal statute at all.
Only one of the three branches of our federal government (the Executive Branch) has been attempting to use the CSA as a weapon to disrupt Oregon's assisted suicide law. Another of the three branches of our federal government (the Congress) has refused on two occasions to provide the Attorney General with specific authority to use the CSA as a weapon to disrupt Oregon's assisted suicide law. Now the third branch of our federal government (the Judicial Branch) has just ordered the Attorney General to stop attempting to use the CSA as a weapon to disrupt Oregon's assisted suicide law without first securing additional Congressional approval.
I think that it's time to recognize that, at the present time, this case involves more of a dispute between the three branches of the federal government than a dispute between the federal government and the state of Oregon. If Attorney General Ashcroft can either (a) secure additional specific authority from Congress or (b) convince an appellate court that he already has Congressional authority, then we might have the opportunity to concern ourselves with any remaining constitutional dispute that may exist between the federal government and the state of Oregon. But for now, we have a dispute within the three branches of our federal government and it is the other two branches of the federal government (and not the state of Oregon) that are frustrating Attorney General Ashcroft's efforts.
That seems reasonable, but we must also acknowledge that there is a dispute between the law enforcement agent of the federal government and a state law. To dismiss it would be foolish. Disputes between the different branches of the federal government have been fairly commonplace since this nation's inception, and should not come as a surprise. The concept of a national bank, for instance, was the nation's first big issue, until its charter was not renewed in 1836 because of Andrew Jackson's belief that the Second National Bank was unconstitutional (even though the court thought it was). In other words, he believed that the bank lasted through 1836 without a constitutional mandate. Our nation was left without a central bank until 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act, which many people still believe is unconstitutional. So the question remains, is it or isn't it? Was it or was it not? Who decides? The courts, the President, Congress, or the people?
The point of the matter is what makes something lawful or constitutional is dependent on the Constitution and controlling legislation (if it is constitutional), not the courts and not an individual. That Andrew Jackson thought the Second National Bank was unconstitutional didn't necessarily make it so. A majority in Congress obviously thought it was, and the Supreme Court agreed.
In the case at hand, while Congress failed to pass an amendment specifically naming "physician-assisted suicide" as medicinally illegitimate, they left the wording present and open to interpretation by those who were charged with enforcing it. They could have, had they desired (although it would have to contradict the Constitution and Declaration by surrendering the federal government's Constitutional guarantee to protect life, I believe), instituted protections for euthenasia, but they didn't. That, I think, is just as important as fact that they failed to specify intentional killing as an illegitimate use of medicine, which it obviously is.
Perhaps you should reread my post before you lose your temper. I specifically said (and I quote), The fourteenth is the only one that mentions a restriction on any type of government, specifically the state. The fifth mentions no type of government, but only the freedoms and rights that the federal government has been charged to protect." Don't get upset just because the English language can't be manipulated to suit your ends. It's just a fact. I'm simply an impartial observer. That you interpret it as condescending is indicative of the emotional stake you have, which is understandable.
Have you ever heard a murderer being charged and convicted of violating Fourteenth Amendment rights?
It hasn't been needed up until this point, as states have generally had laws against murder. Frankly, though, the dead aren't in any position to sue. I would consider it, however, if a family member in Oregon was put to death by a physician, and that physician was not held accountable by state or federal authorities. Part of the reason the fourteenth was worded the way it was is specifically because states weren't adequately protecting the rights of blacks according to the fifth amendment, as the ones habitually persecuting blacks fallaciously claimed the fifth amendment only applied to the authority of the federal government to infringe on those rights. The sitting Congress of the time disagreed, but wanted there to be no room for debate.
Are you now going to pretend the Fourth forbids burglary and since age is not mentioned a parent can’t legally search their child’s room or read their diary without first obtaining a search warrant?
Burglary is forbidden, and except for the income tax (another sore point), the states generally protect against it. As to the "child's room" argument, don't be silly. Of course the parent can search it unless the child has been granted autonomy from the parents through the usual, legal means. The room belongs to part of the house, which belongs to the parent, not the child. We seem to be veering off course. with these scenarios. How would you suggest we get back on track?
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.