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.

The right to life supersedes all other rights. It comes first.

I recommend you read Keyes’ speech at Missouri Right To Life. If you argue that you can deny yourself your own rights, you are saying there are no unalienable rights. If you allow an exception to the right to life in the case of suicide, who's to say that the exceptions will stop there?

Thankfully, however, the Fifth Amendment prohibits everyone, including the states, from taking life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

Assisted suicide is a form of homicide, but not all homicides are criminal. As just one example, homicides committed in self defense are not deemed criminal in any state, although state laws vary with respect to the boundaries of that particular defense.

The Fifth Amendment was adopted as an express limitation on the exercise of Federal power. I can think of no one connected with the adoption of the Fifth Amendment who thought that that amendment would serve as a limitation on the right of states to determine for themselves which homicides should be made criminal or non-criminal in their own jurisdictions.

More importantly, what I think you may be missing is that Dr. Keyes does not appear to be relying upon the Fifth Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. Instead, he seems to be looking to the Declaration of Independence as a source of Federal power. That is what I find to be most remarkable about his analysis of this problem.

One thing has been missing from this discussion: the Declaration of Independence is a political manifesto, not a framework of government.

Yours is the traditional view and that's what I find so amazing about this piece. It's really hard for me to imagine what would have been said by the members of the Continental Congress if they had been told that, despite any limitations in the Articles of Confederation, they had the power under the Declaration of Independence to write the criminal laws for each of the states.

"There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to exercise authority over medical procedures"

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.

The FDA was formed to set interstate commerce standards for pure food & drugs.

-- Not to enforce federal laws regulating their uses. - Thus. -- There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to exercise authority over drug usage or medical procedures, --- is a true statement.

And stop using the silly 'So,' as a prefix for your attempted straw men diversions.

the Fifth Amendment prohibits everyone, including the states, from taking life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

The 5th Amendment restricts the power of the state to non-consensually deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without Due Process.

It no more prohibits an individual from voluntarily taking their own life any more than it prohibits an individual from giving away his own property. The Constitution limits the power of government, not individuals.

Alan Keyes argues that you cannot give away unalienable rights, even if you don?t want them.

Really? I'll keep that in mind the next time someone wants me to waive my 4th Amendment rights and consent to a search.

Suppose a man states that it is pursuing happiness to kill off his annoying coworker? Suppose he says he cannot be happy as long as that coworker is alive, and then he kills them? If the right to be “happy” is a higher good than the right live, than society would have to oblige this man.

I never offered a ranking order for the rights of life, liberty and happiness (or the pursuit thereof), I was just asking why we don't seek to prevent people from giving up the latter two if we're going to federally enforce the first.

In your scenario, the individual in question is trampling on the supposed right to life of his co-worker. In pursuing his happiness he is denying the rights of another. I can see why that would be considered a "bad" thing.

I recommend you read Keyes’ speech at Missouri Right To Life. If you argue that you can deny yourself your own rights, you are saying there are no unalienable rights. If you allow an exception to the right to life in the case of suicide, who's to say that the exceptions will stop there?

So Keyes (and you, apparently) argue that by allowing a person to voluntarily abdicate their own personal rights we slide down a slippery slope where we can decide to remove the rights of others on a whim?

Sorry, but I don't see the logical connection.

They are doing harm by allowing someone to live in pain when there is no cure. If the patient is terminally ill and requesting to be euthenized under those circumstances then the government is committing a human rights violation by stopping the doctor. The doctor has an obligation to treat the person and keep them from the pain of sickness and injury when his/her services are retained. If the retainer can only live in pain then the doctor must, if asked to, help that person die in a humane way. The 5th amendment applies only to trials, it no more restricts the actions of the public than the 1st amendment. It is a bill of rights for a representative republic, not a democracy.

Are you saying that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of life only during a trial? It actually states the opposite! It states that the only time it is permissible by law to take life is through “due process of law”--i.e., through proper trial and conviction. The Fifth Amendment expressly prohibits life from being taken under all other circumstances.

Further, the Hippocratic oath prohibits doctors from giving “deadly medicine to any one if asked,” and even from suggesting it.

If you want it to be permissible for doctors to take life, you will have to throw out the Hippocratic Oath and you will have to amend the Constitution.

The right to life is a civil rights matter, therefore, it is a federal matter.

If the right to life is a civil rights matter and therefore a federal matter because it is described in the Declaration of Independence, would it not follow that the right to the pursuit of happiness is also a civil rights matter and therefore a federal matter because it is also described in the Declaration of Independence? See if you can imagine there to be any limitations on the powers of a Government that is authorized to see to it that its subjects are not deprived of the right to the pursuit of happiness.

The 5th Amendment restricts the power of the state to non-consensually deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without Due Process.

Wrong. It prohibits ALL PERSONS and ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES from taking life without due process of law.

Silly reply. --- I don't claim to know what is in Keyes mind. -- I refuted his words, his claims in the article above, and showed them to be illogical & false.

Defend keyes opinions, if you can, or attack mine. -- But don't claim that my critique is based on some sort of mindreading.

If the hippocratic oath prohibits doctors from fully performing their duties then let's throw it out the window; its "services" are no longer required if that is the case
You wouldn't need to amend the constitution if you actually read the friggin bill of rights. The 9th amendment says that just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it's not denying anyone life. It's making their last days on Earth bearable. The states are under no obligation to prosecute everyone for every action that results in way in someone dying. If they were then a lot of people would be on death row right now. No one would work in the defense industry for fear of a malfunction killing military personnel, no one would work in the embedded systems section of the computer industry, heh no one would work for tire manufacturers!

Wrong. It prohibits ALL PERSONS and ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES from taking life without due process of law.

The Constitution is a framework for government. It is not a legal code for citizens. Aside from treason, piracy and counterfeiting, (and previously alcohol), it does not constitute criminal law. The fed lacks a general police power, as all those were left to the states per the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution was meant to set limits on government power. To turn those limits on citizens while removing them from government is the height of irony.

Unalienble rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, cannot be rescinded by definition.

I can't rescind my right to property? How can I give someone a birthday present???

(Hint: consent)

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.