>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <000d01bf1d1e$9b1bad90$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Clinton's "tortured course" >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:19:47 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > > >My letter to the LA Times and the front-page story that inspired it. > >Take care, > >Peter > >========= > >Editors, Los Angeles Times: > >RE: "House Appears Set to Criminalize Assisted Suicide" > >It is difficult to read a "senior administration official" claim that >President Clinton has "allegiance to states rights" and have the Times >report "Clinton has walked a tortured course, threading between his moral >objection to assisted suicide and his support of states rights." > >Clinton's Justice Department has for 15 months run roughshod over >California's states rights by denying me the use of medical marijuana to >keep down my nausea-producing AIDS medications. It plans to try me on >federal marijuana charges beginning November 16 and send me to prison for a >mandatory ten years, a certain death sentence considering my health. My >doctor agrees that the inability to keep down my AIDS medication--which >medical marijuana did successfully for two years prior to my arrest--is >rapidly hastening my death. All this despite the passage of Proposition 215 >by 56.4 percent of the California electorate--far more than voted for >Clinton in the same election. > >Clinton's "allegiance to states rights" apparently becomes "tortured" when a >physician moves to end the suffering of a willing patient at the end of >life, but evaporates altogether when his Justice Department overrides state >law to end the life of someone who wants very much to live. > >Sincerely, > >Peter McWilliams > >========= > >House Appears Set to Criminalize Assisted Suicide > > >By ALISSA J. RUBIN, Times Staff Writer > > > WASHINGTON--Congress is looking to stymie the nascent movement in the >states to make doctor-assisted suicide legal for the terminally ill. > The House is set to approve legislation today that effectively would >nullify Oregon's law allowing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill >patients--the only such law in the country. The bill also could serve to >dampen support in California and a few other states with legislative >committees that are considering laws similar to Oregon's. > The measure on the House floor today would explicitly make it a >crime--regardless of state law--for doctors to prescribe controlled >substances such as morphine with the intention of hastening death. Violators >would face mandatory prison terms--up to 20 years for the prescription of >morphine, one of the most commonly prescribed painkillers. > Although doctors could continue to prescribe non-controlled substances >in lethal doses, most say that other available drugs would have to be taken >in doses too large to be practical or with too high a likelihood of botched >and painful results. > Doctors in Oregon say that, if the legislation becomes law, they would >be forced to stop helping terminally ill patients end their lives. > The Senate will take up a similar bill by early next year. President >Clinton, an ardent opponent of physician-assisted suicide, has sent signals >through the White House staff and the Justice Department that he will >consider signing the legislation but wants to see softer penalties for >doctors and a few other changes. > The administration's most recent letter to Congress evaluating the bill >avoids any mention of a veto. "The administration strongly opposes the >practice of physician-assisted suicide and would not support the practice as >a matter of federal policy," said a Justice Department letter personally >approved by Clinton to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde >(R-Ill.), according to senior administration officials. > The letter spelled out concerns, however, about the harsh penalties and >about the "heavy-handed" way in which the bill would preclude states from >adopting policies authorizing physician-assisted suicide. > "This is a difficult issue for the president," said another senior >administration official. "It plays into his personal abhorrence to >physician-assisted suicide and his allegiance to state rights. . . . They >are competing issues for him." > At stake is not only the future of the movement to make assisted >suicide legal but also the willingness of doctors to use aggressive >pain-control measures for terminally ill patients. Even now, studies suggest >that doctors undertreat pain in terminally ill patients in 40% to 80% of >their cases and that they frequently cite the fear that law enforcement >officials will question prescriptions of high doses of painkiller, whether >or not the medication hastens death. > Much like abortion, physician-assisted suicide is a highly emotional >issue that divides along ideological rather than party lines. Although a >majority of House members is expected to approve the bill today, there is >much disagreement about what might be constitutional and what might be >ethically appropriate. > "On each side of this debate people have often failed to think about >the contextual realities," said Walter Dellinger, the former solicitor >general who argued before the Supreme Court against a constitutional right >to die. > Given managed health care's emphasis on controlling health costs and >the high cost of health care, there is a risk that some patients could feel >pressured into choosing the less costly option of assisted suicide--a point >often lost on proponents of assisted suicide, Dellinger said. > "And those who would use criminal bans are not being sensitive to how >it would chill . . . limited use of powerful pain medication for people who >are in terminal suffering," Dellinger said. > In Oregon, whose voters twice approved physician-assisted suicide, >policymakers are frustrated by the assault from Washington. > "This bill . . . will make it risky for physicians to be as aggressive >as they should be in treating terminally ill patients," said Mark Gibson, >who advises Oregon Gov. Jon Kitzhaber on health and human services. "I'm not >sure what these folks are trying to accomplish." > Hyde, a sponsor of the bill, pointed out that it was changed to make >clear that aggressive pain control would not be grounds for investigation or >prosecution. Doctors could prescribe all the controlled substances necessary >to alleviate pain, even if the effect is to hasten death, as long as the >intent is not to assist in a patient's suicide. > "We must take steps to kill the pain, not the patient," Hyde said. He >urged his colleagues to vote for the bill to ensure "that powerful drugs >under federal control are used to eliminate pain and suffering, not to >eliminate our fellow Americans." > The bill also would authorize $5 million annually to train law >enforcement agents and doctors in appropriate pain treatment and to >establish protocols for treating severe pain. Many law enforcement officers >and even doctors are not aware that the dosages necessary to quell severe >pain at the end of life can run at least 500 times more than would be >appropriate for patients who had not already developed a tolerance for the >drug. > Doctors and experts in pain treatment are split on the bill. The >American Medical Assn. and the National Hospice Assn. support it, but nine >state medical associations, including those in California, Oregon and >Washington, signed a letter opposing the bill as an intrusion into the >sensitive area of pain treatment at the end of life and states' prerogative >to regulate the practice of medicine. > Clinton has walked a tortured course, threading between his moral >objections to assisted suicide and his support of states' rights. The >Justice Department's most recent take on the issue left the president leeway >to go either way on whatever bill ultimately reaches his desk. > In 1997, Clinton signed a ban on using federal funds under such >programs as Medicare, Medicaid and the military health-care system for >assisted suicide. The previous year, arguing what were thought to be >Clinton's personal views, Dellinger told the U.S. Supreme Court that there >is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------