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.

You stated that your right to life must bend to your right to happiness.

I don't remember being the one to bring up the "right to happiness" until you mentioned it later, though I admit that my memory is poor.

I thought that I was just arguing that a person should be allowed to abdicate their own rights should they choose. Perhaps my example of being terminally ill and in constant agony seemed an inference to the right to happiness (as I certainly wouldn't be happy in such a situation) being used to bend the right to life?

How about we pass a bill called the "Must Use Rights Act."

Failure to speak freely, 2 years in prison, felony
Willful ambivalence to organized religion, but not rejection thereof, felony charge carrying no less than 3 years in a federal penitentary
Failure to own a gun, execution
Failure to tell a cop to shove it up his a$$ when asked to submit to a search without probable cause, no less than 4 years in a federal penitentary and no greater than 10 years
Deciding a jury is not needed in a civil trial where monetary value is in excess of $20, summary siezure of all liquidatable assets and 1 year in prison, misdemeanor
Requesting physician assisted suicide, execution

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 does indeed frame our federal government, but it also lists some restrictions on the states and on persons. The Fifth Amendment states that in the United States of America, life must be respected. It is, of course, up to the local government to enact this edict into law an punish those who violate it. But the local government still MUST respect this Constitutional edict. It cannot absolve itself from this obligation unless it secedes from the union.

Therefore, the local governments are required to protect the right to life, liberty, and property, and punish all of those who take infringe on these rights without due process of law.

I wonder if it is your fears that govern your decisions or your desires to make decisions for other people.

If you wish to start questioning motives, then I wonder if what you want is what Jack Kervorkian wanted, to look in the eyes of someone who is dying to see life extinguished up close and personal. Perhaps you just love to kill, for the thrill of killing.

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

Go ahead and throw it out the window. Most people, however, would rather have its stipulations attached.

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.

You are correct, the Bill of Rights does not include all possible rights. It does, however, currently prohibit the taking of life without due process. In order to change this, you will have to amend the Constitution.

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!

We're not talking accidents here (although, some accidents resulting in death can be prosecuted under law, such as deaths by drunk driving). We're talking about the government allowing the intentional taking of life. Currently, intentional killing is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. If you want it to be otherwise, you have a lot of work to do to overhawl the protections the Founders set in place. But go ahead.

Fortunately we have enough good people in government that he/she would be put on trial for such an offense. However as chariman mao once said, all political authority comes form the barrel of a gun. One need only look at the PRC/USSR to see that that saying is very true. With sufficient numbers of corrupt people in power, that nightmare would indeed come to pass. The only thing besides decent people in the bureacracy keeping that from coming to pass is the fear of a popular revolution. Political authority in our country is only recognized as being in the hands of the public because the only society with a civilian population more heavily armed than us, is Switzerland.

Let's get one thing straight here, if you apply the bill of rights to the public then you will create a de jure police state. Every publisher will have to publish every thing coming their way because that is censorship if they refuse. Every store would have to get rid of its security cameras because that would be dragnetting. Anyone who discriminates in hiring employees would be a criminal. I could go on on and on but that would waste the bandwidth here since I've already made my point

Are you saying it can be legal to murder blacks in Alabama but not New York? I thought American citizens had the same rights across all states.

No, and I'm not even saying that the Federal Government lacks the constitutional authority to adopt the Controlled Substances Act. That is a debatable matter.

What I am saying is that the scope of the Federal Government's legitimate powers are to be found in the Constitution and not in the Declaration of Independence. And I don't believe that to be a debatable matter.

So, it seems to me that anyone wishing to justify the position taken by Ashcroft with regard to Oregon's assisted suicide law should at a minimum include in the argument:

1) a reference to the constitutional provision upon which the Federal Government's right to legislate in this area is based; and

2)a demonstration that Oregon's assisted suicide law violates the Federal legislation.

My concern with Dr. Keyes' analysis is that it avoids these difficult hurdles by employing the Declaration of Independence as some sort of a short-cut. To hit a home run, a batter's got to touch all the bases. He can't just run out to pitcher's mound and run back to home plate.

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

Actually, to give your property away is to exercise your right of property. Your right of property is not just to hold something in your hand, it is to dispose of it according to your will. That, by definition, is what the right to own and control property is.

To follow your logic, you should be able to throw away your right to liberty. This, Alan Keyes also states, is impossible if this right is unalienable. For, if you throw away your freedoms, and you do everything you can to undermine the laws that protect your own liberty, you are not just affecting yourself, you are affecting all other persons.

I would disagree with Dr. Keyes that the DoI frames our government - ideologically yes, legally - no. The DoI did not create a government - it seceded from one. I firmly believe in state sovereignity, but even at that level the decision to legalize murder is wrong.

No one can sanction the murder of an innocent life - neither before they have the opportunity to be born, nor those that for whatever reason choose to have theirs ended.

The pathetic attempt to justify it is an simply an escape for cowards - to assuage their own guilt while morally being able to claim that they did not kill themselves. Would any of them choose to stand before a firing squad to exercise their "choice"?

What was the name of that movie where people died at age 30 (willingly of forcefully)? "Logan's Run"?

I'm in favor of applying the Bill of Rights exactly as they are written. If you'll notice, the First Amendment applies only to Congress. The Fifth Amendment specifically applies to all persons and entities in the United States.

This was the wisdom of the Founders, and I thank God for it.

Fortunately we have enough good people in government that he/she would be put on trial for such an offense. However as chariman mao once said, all political authority comes form the barrel of a gun.

Not in this country it doesn't. And it doesn't depend on good men in government either. Try reading the Federalist Papers. Our system assumes selfish men, acting out of self-interest, and bound by law, would check each others naturally tendency to aggrandize power and wealth. To give any person the legal ability to snuff out the life of someone else, and then say that the victim requested it is to set up doctors of medicine as a kind of public executioners.

In Holland they started with a law much like the Oregon law. Then they started killing any sick person they wanted to who had not made a request to be kept alive. Now they are killing any sick person they want to even if they have requested staying alive. Killing is too profitable to allow the patients to interfere in the process.

I would disagree with Dr. Keyes that the DoI frames our government - ideologically yes, legally - no.

Some of the phrases in the the Declaration of Independence are often used as make-weight ideological arguments in support of a constitutional analysis, but I don't think I've ever before seen anyone attempt to use it as a substitute for the Constitution in a constitutional analysis.

Another huge problem with this approach just occurred to me. The Constitution has provisions which allow for its being amended. By what authority could we ever amend the Declaration of Independence?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't see anything in the 5th amendment that says that it applies to private citizens.

to give your property away is to exercise your right of property. Your right of property is not just to hold something in your hand, it is to dispose of it according to your will. That, by definition, is what the right to own and control property is.

Your right of life is not just to live it, but to dispose of it according to your will. That, by definition is what the right to own and control one's own life is.

To follow your logic, you should be able to throw away your right to liberty.

That's right. What do you think happens when one volunteers for the military?

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.