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.
As things stand it is an unconstitutional Government function. Also I believe a private firm like UL (which tests electrical devices) would be preferable.
That isn't to say that it's necessarily a good or bad thing. It's just how it is.
No, it's a bad bad thing when rights are defined as you have. Our constitution was designed to prevent laws from being enforced which abridge rights as defined therein.
"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.
Exacty who our 'creator' is, - has been a matter of some dispute, and in any case does not exclude human free will as the basis for our rights. -- 1st claim refuted.
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 end your own suffering can hardy be claimed to be an 'innocent' taking of life. -- The law in question has plenty of safeguards to insure it is an entirely voluntary decision by an aware adult that has an inalienable right to make it. - 2nd refuted.
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.
- An unjust act against whom? There is no victim. --- An informed personal choice is made to end our own terminal illness, not to 'improve our material condition'. --- Death is hardly an improvement of the human condition. ---- 3rd claim refuted.
We usurp the authority that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.
Keyes presumes to know our creators basis for authority. - 5th false claim. -- And he repeats his 1st claim, that he knows the basis of our rights. He does not. His opinion is nothing more than just that.
Keyes should stick to defending his political views of the constitution. -- He allows his religious views to lead him into defending the very type of authoritarian state he otherwise detests.
Do persons have an inalienable right to hire another person (a doctor, or a non-doctor) to kill them? If Right is the correlative of duty and wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty, then who is it who owes a duty to that person, and what is the duty?
If persons have an inalienable right to hire a contract killer for such purposes, is the contract assignable?
If the right is inalienable, do minors have the right to enter into such contracts?
Cordially,
If the true scope of Federal power is to be found in the Declaration of Independence rather than in the Constitution (which is what I understand Dr. Keyes to be saying), then there is no need to "cite the particular Article and Section of the United States Constitution which gives the federal government the power to force people to live." But even if we confine ourselves to the provisions of the Declaration of Independence for a description of legitimate Federal powers and just disregard the Constitution, doesn't the issue of assisted suicide involve at the very least a conflict between the "unalienable" right to Life versus the "unalienable" rights to "Liberty" and the "pursuit of Happiness," and isn't there some room for debate as to which of these "unalienable" rights deserve priority?
The whole notion of looking to the Declaration of Independence as a descriptive tool in defining the boundaries of the U.S. Government's power in our federal system would have come as a real shock to our Founding Fathers. Even Marshall would have blushed at this approach.
Thankfully, however, the Fifth Amendment prohibits everyone, including the states, from taking life, liberty, and property without due process of law.
The purpose of government, as the Declaration states and as our Founders believed, is to protect these rights--which rights must be considered unalienable to all persons. Alan Keyes argues that you cannot give away unalienable rights, even if you don’t want them. (see Keyes’ speech at Missouri Right To Life)
Once the right to life fails to be protected by law, even in the circumstance of assisted suicide, eventually no one will be safe.
I believe you're right.
But how does that translate into law? The euthanasia issue is not one of simply dying in dignity, but of using government to allow doctors to kill their patients--in violation of the Hippocratic oath.
So you have no changed your mind and believe that whatever interpretation the government wants to dream up for the Constitution is appropriate and legitimate.
You are in essence claiming to know for certain what Alan Keyes knows. Yet there is no way you could possibly have enough knowledge or experience to know what Alan Keyes knows or does not know. You cannot possibly have searched out and examined every fact and facet of Alan Keyes's life and mind. You do not have first person access to his thoughts. You cannot be totally certain that you have not overlooked something in Alan Keyes' experience whereby he knows the creator's basis for authority.
Cordially,
Being of sound mind, and holding legal capacity to enter into legal contracts, Yes, they do.
If Right is the correlative of duty and wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty, then who is it who owes a duty to that person, and what is the duty?
I don't accept the premise that a person's rights obligate a duty upon another person. One's right to take one's own life does not create an obligation for another person to kill him, any more than a person's right to own property obligates an individual to sell him a house.
Rights are action that when taken, do not infringe upon the rights of another. Killing oneself in no way infringes upon others rights.
Of course, two individuals can voluntarily enter a legal contract, obligating a physician to perform certain services (including euthanasia) in exchange for some consideration. There is no difference between this and any other contract, and I don't see any need to explain contract law here.
If persons have an inalienable right to hire a contract killer for such purposes, is the contract assignable?
IMO, only if specified in the original contract and agreed to in advance by both parties.
If the right is inalienable, do minors have the right to enter into such contracts?
No. Minors have unalienable rights, however they are held in proxy by their parent or guardian until the minor becomes of legal age to exercise them. Minors lack capacity to enter into contracts of any kind. A child's parents can exercise the child's rights, but only in their child's best interests. Should a child be terminally ill and needlessly suffering with no real hope of recovery or pain treatment, a parent who has consent from the child could theoretically assert the child's legal right to euthanasia. In such rare cases, great care and supervision should be exercised to ensure that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child.
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.