Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from south Texas (Mr. PAUL).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
1999 Ron Paul 111:1 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Georgia for yielding
me this time.
1999 Ron Paul 111:2 Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
rule, but I would like to make a couple
of comments about why I do not think
we should support this bill.
1999 Ron Paul 111:3 I am strongly pro-life. I think one of
the most disastrous rulings of this century
was Roe versus Wade. I do believe
in the slippery slope theory. I believe
that if people are careless and casual
about life at the beginning of life, we
will be careless and casual about life at
the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia.
I believe that.
1999 Ron Paul 111:4 I disagree with the Oregon law. If I
were in Oregon, I would vote against
that law. But I believe the approach
here is a legislative slippery slope.
What we are doing is applying this
same principle of Roe versus Wade by
nationalizing law and, therefore, doing
the wrong thing.
1999 Ron Paul 111:5 This bill should be opposed. I think it
will backfire. If we can come here in
the Congress and decide that the Oregon
law is bad, what says we cannot
go to Texas and get rid of the Texas
law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia.
That is the main problem
with this bill.
1999 Ron Paul 111:6 Also, I believe it will indeed dampen
the ability of doctors to treat dying patients.
I know this bill has made an effort
to prevent that, compared to last
year, but it does not. The Attorney
General and a DEA agent will decide
who has given too much medication. If
a patient is dying and they get too
much medicine, and they die, the doctor
could be in big trouble. They could
have criminal charges filed against
them. They could lose their license or
go to jail.
1999 Ron Paul 111:7 Just recently, I had a member of my
family pass away with a serious illness
and required a lot of medication. But
nurses were reluctant to give the medicine
prescribed by the doctor for fear of
lawsuit and fear of charges that something
illegal was being done. With a
law like this, it is going to make this
problem much, much worse.
1999 Ron Paul 111:8 Another thing is this sets up a new
agency. For those conservative colleagues
of mine who do not like the nationalization
of medical care, what my
colleagues are looking at here is a new
agency of government setting up protocols,
educating doctors and hospitals,
and saying this is the way palliative
care must be administered. My colleagues
will have to answer with reports
to the Federal Government.
1999 Ron Paul 111:9 As bad as the Oregon law is, this is
not the way we should deal with the
problem. This bill applies the same
principle as Roe versus Wade.
1999 Ron Paul 111:10 I maintain that this bill is deeply
flawed. I believe that nobody can be
more pro-life than I am, nobody who
could condemn the trends of what is
happening in this country in the movement
toward euthanasia and the
chances that one day euthanasia will
be determined by the national government
because of economic conditions.
But this bill does not deal with life and
makes a difficult situation much
worse.
1999 Ron Paul 111:11 Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act
of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose.
It is to repeal the state of Oregon’s law
dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
1999 Ron Paul 111:12 Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that
the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of
1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme
Court ruling of the 20th century. It has
been this institutionalizing into our legal system
the lack of respect for life and liberty that
has and will continue to play havoc with liberty
and life until it is changed. It has been said by
many since the early 1970s that any legalization
of abortion would put us on a slippery
slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
1999 Ron Paul 111:13 However, I believe that if we are not careful
in our attempt to clarify this situation we also
could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst
to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs.
Wade essentially has nationalized an issue
that should have been handled strictly by the
states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the
stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent
unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking
on more nationalization of law that will in
time backfire. Although the intention of H.R.
2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a
statement against euthanasia it may well just
do the opposite. If the nationalization of law
dealing with abortion was designed to repeal
state laws that protected life there is nothing
to say that once we further establish this principle
that the federal government, either the
Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used
to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other
states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia.
As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state
law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion
that our federal congresses and our federal
courts have the wisdom to tell all the states
how to achieve the goals of protecting life and
liberty.
1999 Ron Paul 111:14 H.R. 2260 makes an effort to delineate the
prescribing of narcotics for alleviating pain
from that of intentionally killing the patient.
There is no way medically, legally, or morally
to tell the difference. This law will serve to curtail
the generous use of narcotics in a legitimate
manner in caring for the dying. Claiming
that this law will not hinder the legitimate use
of drugs for medical purposes but not for an
intentional death is wishful thinking. In fear
that a doctor will be charged for intentionally
killing a patient, even though the patient may
have died coincidentally with an injection, this
bill will provide a great barrier to the adequate
treatment of our sick and dying who are suffering
and are in intense pain.
1999 Ron Paul 111:15 The loss of a narcotic’s license, as this bill
would dictate as punishment, is essentially denying
a medical license to all doctors practicing
medicine. Criminal penalties can be invoked
as well. I would like to call attention to
my colleagues that this bill is a lot more than
changing the Controlled Substance Act. It is
involved with educational and training programs
to dictate to all physicians providing
palliative care and how it should be managed.
An entirely new program is set up with an administrator
that “shall” carry out a program to
accomplish the developing and the advancing
of scientific understanding of palliative care
and to disseminate protocols and evidence-based
practices regarding palliative care.
1999 Ron Paul 111:16 All physicians should be concerned about a
federal government agency setting up protocols
for medical care recognizing that many
patients need a variation in providing care and
a single protocol cannot be construed as
being “correct”.
1999 Ron Paul 111:17 This program is designed to instruct public
and private health care programs throughout
the nation as well as medical schools, hospices
and the general public. Once these
standards are set and if any variation occurs
and a subsequent death coincidentally occurs
that physician will be under the gun from the
DEA. Charges will be made and the doctor will
have to defend himself and may end up losing
his license. It will with certainty dampen the
enthusiasm of the physician caring for the critically
ill.
1999 Ron Paul 111:18 Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative
agreements and contracts to help
professional schools and other medical agencies
will be used to educate and train health
care professionals in palliative care. It is not
explicit but one can expect that if the rules are
not followed and an institution is receiving federal
money they will be denied these funds
unless they follow the universal protocols set
up by the federal government. The bill states
clearly that any special award under this new
program can only be given if the applicant
agrees that the program carried out with the
award will follow the government guidelines.
These new programs will be through the
health professional schools, i.e. the medical
schools’ residency training programs and other
graduate programs in the health professions. It
will be a carrot and stick approach and in time
the medical profession will become very frustrated
with the mandates and the threat that
funds will be withheld.
1999 Ron Paul 111:19 The Secretary of Health and Human Services
in charge of these programs are required
to evaluate all the programs which means
more reports to be filled out by the institutions
for bureaucrats in Washington to study. The
results of these reports will be to determine
the effect such programs have on knowledge
and practice regarding palliative care. Twenty
four million dollars is authorized for this new
program.
1999 Ron Paul 111:20 This program and this bill essentially nationalizes
all terminal care and opens up Pandora’s
box in regards to patient choices as
well as doctor judgment. This bill, no matter
how well intended, is dangerously flawed and
will do great harm to the practice of medicine
and for the care of the dying. This bill should
be rejected.
Note:
1999 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Here, Ron Paul thanks The Honorable John Linder.
1999 Ron Paul 111:13
the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn omits a noun. Perhaps Ron Paul meant
the wholesale killing of millions of innocent unborn, or perhaps
the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent unborn or even
the wholesale murder of millions of innocent unborn.
1999 Ron Paul 111:15
The loss of a narcotics license probably should not have an apostrophe: The loss of a narcotics license.
1999 Ron Paul 111:19
The Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs are required
probably should be
The Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs is required.
1999 Ron Paul 111:19
Twenty four million dollars probably should be hyphenated:
Twenty-four million dollars.
