Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, one of the most difficult decisions we in Congress routinely face on the Federal level is choosing where to act or intervene in a decision that is reached elsewhere. There are some that are relatively easy decisions for most Americans, as in the case of where there is active discrimination or a failure to protect the environment. People feel entirely comfortable with the Federal Government moving to assure equity and environmental protection.
Many, however, are decisions that are very much in a gray area, which some choose, unfortunately, to use for political reasons. One of these gray areas, the decision that affects the end of life, is perhaps one of the most difficult and personal.
In the State of Oregon, which I represent, we have struggled, debated and agonized over this issue for the last 4 years. The end-of-life issue is a very complex one, and, with the advent of new medical technologies and our rapidly aging population, it is getting more so for more of us.
There are a wide range of ways to impact on these decisions, but none, as near as I can tell, require Federal help or interference. Yet today, the House Committee on the Judiciary is poised to have one of its subcommittees deal with legislation that would do precisely that, undermine a decision that has been agonized over in my State of Oregon for these last 4 years.
There are, in fact, some very technical problems of a serious nature with this legislation. It would, in fact, interfere with the practice of medicine, of pharmacy, of pain management, of hospice management, in ways that would have profound effects on rights that many in America have taken for granted, and that is why there are large numbers of the medical profession that have come forward with their opposition to legislation of this nature.
In Oregon, our legislation, Death with Dignity, is still a work in progress, but the fact is the preliminary evidence suggests that this option may actually reduce the incidence of violent suicide while easing the burden of both the individual and their family.
Rather than having a flood of people to our State to take advantage of the provisions of the Death with Dignity law, it appears that individuals, having the knowledge that they, their families and their doctors can control this decision, gives a sense of peace and contentment that enables some people to move forward, enduring the pain and the struggle, without resorting to taking their own life.
At this very moment, there are people in America who are struggling with this question in their family, and, before the day is out, there will be someone in America who will, in fact, hasten their death.
As Americans struggle with these issues, mostly hidden from public view, it is important that we not have that personal tragedy, that agony, that frustration made more difficult by laws that ignore the realities of modern medicine and the range of legitimate personal medical choices.
As we age as a society, exponentially, with the increase of the elderly population, and just the growth in our population, this will become more serious. As medical science continues to advance, the difficult decision points are going to be made more difficult and more complex.
The evidence suggests that Americans support the principles of Death with Dignity. But whether you are a conservative and supportive of States' rights, or you are characterizing yourself perhaps as more progressive and feel that the government should be involved with more innovative policy development, it should be a point of common agreement that the Federal Government should allow Oregonians to continue their struggle in the implementation of Death with Dignity and avoid unnecessary Federal interference. END
