An
Unpublished Letter to the Editor of National Forum,
The
Journal of The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi
(of
which I am still a member in good standing)
In his illuminating article "Bioethics
Discovers the Bill of Rights", Robert M. Veatch writes: "The
President's Commission has affirmed a right to 'equitable
access to...and adequate level of [health] care without
excessive burdens.' I do not believe that is found in the Bill
of Rights." Perhaps it is.
Amendment Five in the Bill of Rights states in
part: "No person...[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law..." Consequently, in my
opinion, no person can constitutionally be denied access to
adequate levels of whatever is necessary for life or well-being,
unless -- after having been convicted in a court of law -- one
is being punished (and even then, the Eighth Amendment commands
that the state shall not inflict on the guilty party "cruel
and unusual punishments", as would be epitomized by the
withholding of any necessary medical treatments).
I realize that this interpretation of the Fifth
Amendment can open a Pandora's Box of other claims upon the
state for equal access to adequate levels of such other
necessities of life as food, shelter, clothing, and education.
However, for those of us between the age of first becoming "brain alive" (at about 26 to 28 weeks after conception) and
the age of being irreversibly "brain dead", the right to
life has no meaning without the means to sustain it.
Many might agree with such sentiment in theory
but object to it on purely pragmatic grounds: Can our nation
afford to be so humanitarian? I ask, however, can any nation not
afford to be? The "bottom line" is that a nation's
greatest natural resources are its human resources -- if we
allow our fellow citizens to become sick, impoverished, and
ignorant we will become as economically bankrupt as a society as
we will be morally bankrupt as individuals.
Note: By 2003, public debate was
stimulated along these lines with coverage, as on 60 Minutes,
of felons in prison -- in the custody of the government -- receiving better healthcare, at taxpayer expense, than many
law-abiding taxpayers, increasing numbers of whom are without
health insurance.