Same Day Multiple Prescriptions
 Why is Our Government Pursuing a War on Doctors?

Free Electronic Newsletter

If enacted the Pain Relief Promotion Act would have amended the Controlled Substances Act and promoted palliative care without permitting assisted suicide.
In that latter regard the proposed law was also a federal attack on Oregon’s Death With Dignity Legislation. "While the “Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999” would not technically “overturn” the Oregon law, it would severely hamper the ability of patients to invoke it, since physicians would be unable to legally prescribe intentionally lethal doses of federally controlled substances." AMA Legal Analysis of the Hyde-Nickles "Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999," H.R. 2260 and S. 1272. [PDF]
The Pain Relief Promotion Act (PRPA) recognized that relieving pain is a legitimate medical reason for treating patients with controlled substances, even if their use increases the risk of death. PRPA also sought to increase education and training of health care professionals in palliative care, as well as educate law enforcement agents on the legitimate use of controlled substances in pain management

Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, S. 1272. [HTML] $[Lexis]
Bill tracking, House of Representatives [HTML] $[Lexis]
Bill tracking, Senate [HTML] $[Lexis]

Professional Societies Commentaries
AMA Legal Analysis of the Hyde-Nickles "Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999," H.R. 2260 and S. 1272. [PDF]
Summary: This AMA position statement summarizes the Pain Relief Promotion Act and specifies why it is supported by the AMA. The AMA argues that the double effect principles in the bill are consistent with the AMA’s goal to palliate pain without supporting assisted suicide. This statement also explains the Act’s effect on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

ANA Opposes Pain Relief Act, NURSING, July 1, 2000 at 63. $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Article reports the American Nurses Association’s opposition to the Pain Relief Promotion Act because it would allow the Drug Enforcement Administration discretion in deciding whether a clinician prescribed with the intent to relieve pain or to aid suicide.

Law Review Commentaries

Christin A. Batt, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Call for Congressional Self-Restraint, 38 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 297 (2001). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Batt examines the Pain Relief Promotion Act and other congressional attempts to overturn the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The article also examines the Commerce Power as Congress’ authority to regulate physicians’ prescriptions of controlled substances and the Act’s conflict with traditional state dominance in medical regulation.

Beth A. Diebold, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999: Whose Pain Does it Relieve? 12 LOY. CONSUMER L. REV. 356 (2000). $[Westlaw]
Summary: Article discuses the development of drug laws relevant to palliative care and notes important provisions of the Pain Relief Promotion Act. Specifically discussed is the argument that criminal sanctions against physicians who use controlled substances to treat patients might have a chilling effect on adequate pain management.

Joy Fallek, The Pain Relief Promotion Act: Will it Spell Death to "Death with Dignity” or is it Unconstitutional? 27 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1739 (2000). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Article outlines the Pain Relief Promotion Act and notes its goal to increase education about palliative care. Fallek also discusses Constitutional challenges that could be brought against the Act, including federalist Commerce Clause concerns and equal protection issues. Congress’ long history of drug regulation and favorable decisions about its right to regulate drugs under the Commerce Clause are also noted.

Robert A. Klinck, Pain Relief Promotion Act, 38 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 249 (2001). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Klinck discusses the Pain Relief Promotion Act that was debated in the 106^th Congress. The author notes that doctors who violate the act by prescribing controlled substances to assist in a suicide would face revocation of their license to distribute controlled substances as well as criminal penalties. The article also examines a possible Commerce Clause challenge that could be brought if the bill is enacted, and discusses why federal regulation on intrastate prescribing could be controversial.

Other Commentaries

Stacy Diloreto, The Complexities of Assisted Suicide, PATIENT CARE, Nov. 30, 2000 at 65. [HTML] $[Lexis]
Summary: Article discusses the current state of assisted suicide and palliative care. Diloreto explains how the Pain Relief Promotion Act would limit the Oregon Death With Dignity Act by punishing physicians for prescribing federally controlled substances for the purpose of ending life. Opposition to the Act by those who fear inadequate protection for physicians engaging in palliative care is also discussed.

Jack P. Freer, Congress and the Pain Relief Promotion Act, WESTERN J. OF MED., Jan. 1, 2000 at 5. $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Freer summarizes the Pain Relief Promotion Act, and notes the double effect reasoning contained within it. Under this reasoning, a doctor who prescribes controlled substances for the lawful purpose of relieving pain would not be liable for the secondary outcome of hastening death.

Wesley J. Smith, Better Off Dead? THE WEEKLY STANDARD, May 29, 2000 at 25. [HTML] $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Article examines the opposition to the Pain Relief Promotion Act. Specifically, the argument that it would have a chilling effect on aggressive palliation of pain is discussed.

Stephen J. Ziegler, JD and Nicholas P. Lovrich, Jr., PhD, Prohibiting Physician-Assisted Suicide at the Expense of Pain Relief (September, 2001)