“Thou shalt not touch that which is mine, if thou canst help, or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent: and may I, being of sound mind, do to others as I would that they should do to me.”
This is surely a most righteous ethical code, clear, broad and simple, and in moral and logical effect it is nearer like our American Declaration of Rights than any other formula, particularly as regards the recognition of the sacred personal rights of the individual which is equivalent to the principle of “unalienable rights” in the Declaration. The phrase, “Thou shalt not touch that which is mine or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent,” is certainly a most righteous rule of human honesty, sanctity, justice and security which surely condemns everything like compulsory medicine which touches and violates the body with inflicted disease, without consent of the patient, and removes and destroys the most sacred possession of the individual, viz., bodily sanctity, health and life.
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ANALYZED AND DEFINED
It will be noted that the significant words of the second article of the Declaration state that “all men” are endowed by their Creator with “certain” “unalienable rights,” among which are “life,” “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness.” By the word “certain” is, therefore, clearly meant various, many or several rights, most of which are left unspecified or not categorically stated except where it refers to the chief or general rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And it is obvious that by these expressions are clearly meant all essential natural or “unalienable” rights which are necessary to life, safety, liberty and happiness of the individual and which do not interfere with, invade or endanger the life, liberty or happiness of any other individual. The right to “life” of course stands first, and is stated first, because without life we have nothing; and the right to “liberty” is stated second, because without reasonable liberty life itself would be useless, and without ample liberty to pursue our ideas of happiness in our own ways, without infringing on the liberty or happiness of others, the right to nominal liberty might itself be useless and meaningless.
Let me now remind you, Mr. President, at this point, that all the reform we ask for in this whole matter is the very important and essential right of Medical Freedom, viz., the free right of every person to accept or reject any medical operation whatever as the citizen or patient sees fit, which is obviously an “unalienable right,” and, as I will soon show, is as clearly covered in the Constitution by direct implication as the right to religious freedom is covered by specific guarantee. And of the two it is obvious that the right to medical freedom is even more important than the right to religious freedom, and that medical compulsion is to-day a far more dangerous evil than religious compulsion ever was.
Medical compulsion is therefore not only immoral, illegal and unconstitutional, but is also contrary to all true medical ethics, which call for the absolute medical freedom and right of the patient to decide what operation is or is not to be performed on his own body and blood; and, if any doctor, or any government behind the doctor, has any sovereign right whatever to force any medication or operation on any patient, however humble, against his will, consent or desire, will some one please tell us where the doctor, or the government, got this right morally, medically or legally?
ALL POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE TO THE GOVERNMENT—NOT VICE VERSA
Every true American and Democrat knows, that according to our immortal Declaration of Rights and our great Constitution our Government has no rights or powers whatever except what the People have given to it and that the source of all power is in the People and comes from the People to the Government, and not vice versa, as in the Monarchic systems which we have been fighting in the Great War. Under our democratic system, government does not give any rights to the people, as in monarchic systems, but the people are endowed originally and inherently with all necessary or unalienable rights for life, liberty and happiness, and their government exists simply or chiefly for the purpose of protecting and enforcing these rights, not for granting or denying rights which exist unalienably in the people themselves.
It will therefore be found that our wonderful Constitution, as well as the Declaration, covers these fundamental points most distinctly as to inherent, unalienable rights retained by and dwelling in the people, where it states in Articles IX and X as follows:
“The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”