Reguest for Information Regarding Medical Aid in Dying

Letter from Senator James Lankford, Rep James L Correa and Rep Gregory F. Murphy (M.D.) to The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services

June 1, 2026

RE: Request for Information Regarding Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) (CMS-1851-P) (RIN 0938-AV78)

Dear Secretary Kennedy:

We submit this comment as bipartisan, bicameral Members of Congress in response to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) request for information regarding medical aid in dying (MAID), 91 Fed. Reg. 17338. Medically assisted suicide raises significant informed consent issues as well as concerns about disability and age discrimination. Since the vast majority of assisted suicide patients are enrolled in hospice—92% according to Oregon data and 90% according to Washington data‍1 this is problematic for HHS and CMS’ regulation of patient health and safety within the hospice program. We urge HHS and CMS to implement reporting requirements in the hospice program to monitor assisted suicide for discriminatory practices against vulnerable populations,‍2 as well as ensure compliance with the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act.‍3

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld Washington’s and New York’s bans on assisted suicide in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill.‍4 The majority opinions found that there is no right to assisted suicide under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.‍5 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concurred, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer, expressing concern about “the risk that a dying patient’s request for assistance in ending his or her life might not be truly voluntary.”‍6 Nearly thirty years of assisted suicide practice in the United States has not alleviated that concern.

Currently, thirteen states plus the District of Columbia permit assisted suicide.‍7 These laws permit certain medical practitioners to prescribe drugs at lethal dosages to a patient that is, among other criteria, eighteen years or older and “terminally ill” with a six month or less prognosis, with or without care, so that the patient may self-administer the drugs.‍8 Yet, as the National Council on Disability warns, under assisted suicide laws, “some people’s lives, particularly those of people with disabilities, will be ended without their fully informed and free consent, through mistakes, abuse, insufficient knowledge, and the unjust lack of better options.”‍9

There are grave informed consent issues within assisted suicide. Doctor shopping is rampant; Oregon data indicates the median patient-physician relationship is four weeks, with some relationships ranging as little as zero weeks.‍10 Mental health referrals are practically nonexistent, as only 0.5% of patients received them, even though many assisted suicide patients show signs of depression, which can impair the decision-making process.‍11 On top of this, “it is common for medical prognoses of a short life expectancy to be wrong,” and under the definition of terminal illness in assisted suicide laws, “[t]here is no requirement that the doctors consider the likely impact of medical treatment, counseling, and other supports on survival.”12

Assisted suicide drugs are experimental. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not approve compounded drugs,‍13 which are commonly used in assisted suicide,‍14 and the FDA could never approve drugs indicated for assisted suicide because they are not “safe” for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.‍15 As The Atlantic reported in 2019, “[i]n states where the practice is legal, state governments provide guidance about which patients qualify, but say nothing about which drugs to prescribe.”‍16 With “no government-approved clinical drug trial, and no Institutional Review Board oversight,” assisted suicide drug prescribers are left to experiment directly on end-of-life patients.‍17

Disability issues arise in assisted suicide. An individual with terminal illness meets the definition of a physical disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.‍18 In fact, individuals with disabilities and disability rights groups have raised this argument and alleged assisted suicide laws violate federal disability rights laws in litigation across the country.‍19 Patients seeking assisted suicide commonly request assisted suicide, not due to pain or concerns about future pain, but for disability-related reasons, citing concerns about “loss of autonomy,” being “less able to engage in activities,” and “loss of dignity.”‍20 Consequently, assisted suicide stigmatizes disabilities, and sends the message that the lives of persons with disabilities are less valued in society.

Age discrimination and elder abuse are also concerns within assisted suicide practices. Most assisted suicide patients are age 65 or older (88.3% under Oregon data and 86.2% under Washington data).‍21 Although assisted suicide laws require two witnesses to the lethal drug request, most states only require one witness to be disinterested, meaning, one of these witnesses may be a beneficiary to the patient’s will or life insurance policy.‍22 Assisted suicide laws do not require a prescriber or any witnesses to be present when the patient self-administers the drugs.‍23 Especially with patient age and education demographics—most patients are well educated—these circumstances are “consistent with elder abuse” and possible financial exploitation.‍24

Assisted suicide undermines America’s national posture of suicide prevention. America is facing an epidemic of suicide. In 2024, we lost more than 50,000 Americans to suicide and over 1.5 million Americans attempted suicide. Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death in America and around 135 suicides occur every day on average. Additionally, over 14 million adults reported seriously considering suicide in 2024. Peer-reviewed data shows that where assisted suicide is legalized, rates of non-assisted suicide spike.25 Additionally, each year the U.S. government invests hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually in suicide prevention services. States and localities spend millions each year as well. A 2024 NIH report shows that the economic cost of suicide/self-harm is estimated at $510 billion annually.26 New data shows that people living with serious and potentially life limiting health conditions are more than twice as likely to die by suicide compared with the general population.27 Assisted suicide undermines suicide prevention services, normalizes premature death for vulnerable populations, undermines their sense of autonomy and dignity, and pushes society away from robust care, support, and the protection of life.

Congress has restricted federal funding for assisted suicide and protected conscientious objections to the practice. The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act broadly limits federal funds from “paying (directly or indirectly)” for the provision of “any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”‍28 This prohibition extends to a “pay[ment] . . . for such an item or service” and a “pay[ment] (in whole or in part) for health benefit coverage” related to the coverage or expenses of “such an item or service.”‍29 The Affordable Care Act also provides anti-discrimination protections for an individual or institutional health care entity that does not participate in “assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”‍30

As you consider the assisted suicide issue further, we recommend you use the statutory language, “assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing,” which is more precise than “MAID.”‍31 “MAID” includes both assisted suicide and euthanasia,‍32 even though no jurisdiction in the United States permits euthanasia.

We also request that you establish reporting requirements within hospice programs regarding assisted suicide. In doing so, please consider monitoring assisted suicide practices for the following:

• Discrimination against individuals with disabilities, older persons, and other vulnerable groups; Eligibility of patients solely due to an eating disorder;‍33
• Proper disposal of unused medication and prevention of drug diversion;‍34
• Insurance denials of life-sustaining medical care that offer to cover assisted suicide drugs instead;‍35
• Drug complications;
• Experimentation of assisted suicide drug compounds;
• Compliance with federal restrictions on using funds, directly or indirectly, for health care items or services for assisted suicide.

As Senators and Members of Congress who are committed to the health and safety of hospice patients, especially those in vulnerable populations, we are grateful to see HHS and CMS consider how assisted suicide practices pose discrimination and informed consent issues. We urge HHS and CMS to establish reporting requirements to monitor assisted suicide for discriminatory practices and oversee compliance with federal funding restrictions within hospice programs. All hospice patients—regardless of physical disability, mental health, eating disorder, age, or financial means—deserve compassionate end-of-life care that is free of coercion and discrimination.

Sincerely,

James Lankford
United States Senator

J. Luis Correa
Member of Congress

Gregory F. Murphy, M.D.
Member of Congress

1 Oregon Death With Dignity Act: 2025 Data Summary (Oregon Report), Or. Health Auth. 1, 9 (Apr. 1, 2026), https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le8579_25.pdf; 2024 Death with Dignity (Washington Report), Wash. State Dep’t Health 1, 1 (July 2025), https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/422-109-DeathWithDignityAct2024.pdf.
2 See 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(dd)(2)(G) (directing hospice programs to “meet[] such other requirements as the Secretary may find necessary in the interest of the health and safety of the individuals who are provided care and services by such agency or organization”).
3 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 14401 to 14408; see also 41 C.F.R. § 411.15 (q) (2025).
4 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997); Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).
5 Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 735; Vacco, 521 U.S. at 808.
6 Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 738.
7 Euthanasia, Cornell L. Sch. Legal Info. Inst. (Oct. 2025), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/euthanasia; 410 Ill. Comp. Stat. 22/1 to /999 (2026) (eff. Sept. 12, 2026); N.Y. Pub. Health Law art. 28-F, §§ 2899-d to -s (McKinney 2026) (eff. Aug. 5, 2026).
8 E.g., Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.800, 127.805 (2023).
9 Nat’l Council on Disability, The Danger of Assisted Suicide Laws, Bioethics & Disability Series 14–15 (2019).
10 Oregon Report, supra note 1, at 18.
11 See id. at 15.
12 Nat’l Council on Disability, supra note 9, at 21–22.
13 Human Drug Compounding Laws, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.fda.gov/drugs/humandrug-compounding/human-drug-compounding-laws.
14 See Oregon Report, supra note 1, at 22.
15 See 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1)(A)(i).
16 Jennie Dear, The Doctors Who Invented a New Way to Help People Die, Atlantic (Jan. 22, 2019), https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/01/medical-aid-in-dying-medications/580591/.
17 Id.
18 See 42 U.S.C. § 12102; 29 U.S.C. § 705(9).
19 E.g., United Spinal Ass’n v. California, No. 24-2751 (9th Cir. argued Mar. 26, 2025).
20 Nat’l Council on Disability, supra note 9, at 37.
21 Oregon Report, supra note 1, at 12; Washington Report, supra note 1, at 4.
22 Margaret K. Dore, “Death With Dignity”: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and Homicide (Albeit Not by Name), 11 Marq. Elder’s Advisor 387, 388 (2012).
23 Nat’l Council on Disability, supra note 9, at 42.
24 Dore, supra note 22, at 396; see also About Abuse of Older Persons, U.S. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (Nov. 7, 2024), https://www.cdc.gov/elder-abuse/about/index.html.
25 https://sma.org/southern-medical-journal/article/how-does-legalization-of-physician-assisted-suicide-affect-ratesof-suicide/
26 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38479565/
27https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesamongpeoplediagnosedwithseverehealthconditionsengland/2017to2020
28 42 U.S.C. § 14402(a)(1).
29 Id. § 14402(a)(2) to (3).
30 42 U.S.C. § 18113(a).
31 42 U.S.C. § 14402; 42 U.S.C. § 18113.
32 See Medical Assistance in Dying: Overview, Gov’t Can. (Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.canada.ca/en/healthcanada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html.
33 See Chelsea Roth & Catherine Cook-Cottone, Assisted Death in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review of Cases and Clinical Rationales, Frontiers Psychiatry, July 31, 2024, at 1.
34 See Oregon Report, supra note 1, at 4 (noting 400 people died by assisted suicide in 2025, but prescribers wrote 637 prescriptions).
35 Nat’l Council on Disability, supra note 9, at 20–21.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports Congressional Resolution (HCR 109) on the Dangers of Assisted Suicide

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports Congressional Resolution (HCR 109) on the Dangers of Assisted Suicide as introduced by Rep Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M., (R-OH) and Rep Lou Correa, (D-CA). 

EPC urges Congress to expedite the debate and pass this Resolution.

Link to the full resolution (Link).

Congressional Resolution 109 does the following:

1. It defines the language as to what assisted suicide is as compared to suicide and it reiterates the importance of suicide prevention programs.

2. It recognizes that assisted suicide most directly threatens the lives of people who are elderly, experience depression, have a disability, or are subject to emotional or financial pressure to end their lives;

3. It states that: 

• the Oregon Health Authority's annual reports indicate that pain or the fear of pain is listed second to last (25 percent) among the reasons cited by people seeking assisted suicide drugs since 1998 and the top 5 reasons cited are psychological and social concerns: ‘‘losing autonomy’’ (92 percent), ‘‘less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable’’ (90 percent), ‘‘loss of dignity’’ (79 percent), ‘‘losing control of bodily functions’’ (48 percent), and ‘‘burden on family friends/caregivers’’ (41 percent);
• the Supreme Court has ruled twice (in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill) that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, that the Government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting assisted suicide, and that such prohibitions rationally relate to ‘‘protecting the vulnerable from coercion’’ and ‘‘protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and ‘societal indifference’;
• assisted suicide is not a legitimate health care service and that Congress passed, with a nearly unanimous vote, and President Bill Clinton signed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act to prevent the use of Federal funds for any item or service, including advocacy, provided for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the death of any individual such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;

4. It points out that States that authorize assisted suicide:

• do not require that such patients receive psychological screening or treatment, though studies show that the overwhelming majority of patients contemplating suicide experience depression;
• do not require a medical attendant or qualified monitor be present at the time the lethal dose is taken, used, ingested, or administered to intervene in the event of medical complications;
• do not require that a qualified monitor be present to assure that the patient is knowingly and voluntarily taking, using, ingesting, or administering the lethal dose;
• do not prevent family members, heirs, or health care providers from pressuring patients to request assisted suicide;
• use a broad definition of ‘‘terminal disease’’ whereby ‘‘going to die in six months or less’’ includes diseases (such as diabetes or HIV) that, if appropriately treated, would not otherwise result in death within six months and it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a six-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty;

5. It states that: 

• reporting requirements vary by State, but when required, they rely on prescribing physicians or dispensing pharmacists to self-report; and such reporting is neither conducted by an objective third party nor of sufficient depth and accuracy to effectively monitor the occurrence of assisted suicide. 
• there is an astounding lack of transparency in the practice of assisted suicide to the extent that State health departments and other authorities admittedly have no method of knowing if it is being practised within the bounds of State laws and they have no funding or authority to make such a determination; and some State laws actively conceal assisted suicide by directing the physician to list the cause of death as the underlying condition without reference to death by suicide; 
• based on the confidential nature of end-of-life decisions, it is virtually impossible to effectively monitor a physician’s behavior to prevent abuses, making any number of safeguards insufficient;
• the cost of lethal drugs is far less costly than many life-saving treatments, which threatens to restrict treatment options, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons, as has happened in several known cases and presumably many more unknown in which insurers have denied or delayed coverage for life-saving care while offering to cover assisted suicide;
• access to personal assistance services such as in-home hospice and palliative care, home health care aides, and nursing care or assistance is regretfully limited and subject to long waiting lists in many areas, placing systemic pressure on patients in need of such personal assistance services to resort to assisted suicide; and
• For all these reasons, assisted suicide undermines the integrity of the health care system: 

It concludes:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should ensure that every person facing the end of their life have access to the best quality and comprehensive medical care, including palliative, in-home, or hospice care, tailored to their needs and that the Federal Government should not adopt or endorse policies or practices that support, encourage, or facilitate suicide or assisted suicide, whether by physicians or others.

The National Council on Disability: The Danger of Assisted Suicide Laws (Link).

Congressional Resolution (HCR 109) on the Dangers of Assisted Suicide

Reps. Wenstrup and Correa Resolution (HCR 109) on the Dangers of Physician Assisted Suicide in Washington on May 23, 2024 

You can read the full resolution here.

Reps. Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M., (R-OH) and Lou Correa, (D-CA) introduced a resolution “expressing the sense of the Congress that assisted suicide puts everyone, including those most vulnerable, at risk of deadly harm.” 

Rep Brad Wenstrup

In 2019, the National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency that makes policy recommendations to enhance the lives of all Americans with disabilities, released a report titled “The Danger of Assisted Suicide Laws” recommending Congress enact the resolution that Reps. Wenstrup and Correa have introduced in the 116th and 117th Congresses.

“As a physician, I believe physician-assisted suicide fundamentally goes against our duty to ‘first, do no harm’ and puts our nation’s most vulnerable – seniors and individuals with disabilities – at grave risk,” said Rep. Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M. “We must not lose sight of the undeniable fact that every life has intrinsic value and is worth protecting.”

Rep Lou Correa

“Americans with disabilities deserve access to quality health care and should be given every opportunity available to live quality, dignified lives,” said Rep. Lou Correa. “Our most vulnerable deserve the same access to suicide prevention care and all health care as anyone else. There is so much more work to do to ensure that we’re properly addressing the mental health crisis in our communities–and we cannot stop delivering resources directly to those who need it most in our neighborhoods.” 

Rep Greg Murphy

“Rather than support and facilitate access to physician-assisted suicide, we should prioritize expanding accessibility to palliative and hospice care to maximize the quality of life for patients experiencing excessive pain,” said Rep. Greg Murphy. “As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I have dedicated my career to saving lives and comforting my patients. Assisted suicide is unethical and vulnerable individuals must be protected, especially when there are alternative options available.” 

Rep Chris Smith

“Our focus should be on killing pain instead of making it easier to kill people,” said Rep. Chris Smith. “When a society singles out the weakest and most vulnerable patients as candidates for physician-assisted suicide, it denies the value of their lives, undermines their dignity, and rejects their needs, including their need for the best possible palliative care.” 

Matt Valliére

“In today’s political environment, when something has bi-partisan support, that means something. So, we commend Congressmen Lou Correa (D-CA), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), and all the cosponsors for their effort to gain support for and introduce this bi-partisan Sense of Congress resolution which highlights the inherently discriminatory nature of assisted suicide laws. None other than the National Council on Disability, which is charged by the federal government to make policy recommendations for the disability community, issued a recent report that found that people living with disabilities are targeted for disfavored, deadly treatment and face greater barriers to accessing health care when assisted suicide is legal. Our country has a responsibility to ensure that vulnerable people enjoy the same access to suicide prevention care and all health care as everyone else. We encourage lawmakers to come together and support this resolution that exposes the dangers of assisted suicide,” said Matt Vallière, Executive Director, Patients Rights Action Fund. 

Vincenzo Piscopo

“Quadriplegics struggling to live in the community, faced with housing, financial, and transportation problems, and the constant struggle to obtain adequate homecare and coverage of mobility equipment from government and insurers, are often overwhelmed and depressed. Just after spinal cord injury or other significant disability, grief regarding loss of physical abilities and future dreams can cause folks to want to die. Doctors who may agree that life with XYZ disability is not worth living can prescribe drugs under the assisted suicide public policy to people with disabilities who refuse treatment. Doctors should not help overwhelmed people with disabilities kill themselves, rather our society should solve the underlying problems causing them to give up. This is why we at United Spinal filed a groundbreaking lawsuit to overturn the California assisted suicide law and join Reps. Correa and Wenstrup in decrying assisted suicide and euthanasia laws and support this common sense resolution,” said Vincenzo Piscopo, President and CEO of United Spinal Association.

Diane Coleman

“The public image of severe disability as a fate worse than death has become grounds for carving out a deadly exception to longstanding laws and public policies pertaining to suicide prevention services. Legalizing assisted suicide means that some people who say they want to die will be offered suicide intervention, while others will be provided suicide assistance. The difference between these two groups of people will be their health or disability status, leading to a two-tiered system that results in death to the socially devalued group. As a national, secular, social justice organization, Not Dead Yet strongly supports this bipartisan effort to counter the many myths about legalized assisted suicide,” said Diane Coleman, President and CEO of Not Dead Yet.

Disability rights community support Congress Resolution 68 opposing assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On February 4, Lou Correa (D-CA) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) introduced Congressional Resolution 68 which addresses the risk of legalizing assisted suicide. (Link to the Resolution).

The disability rights community strongly supports H.Con.Res.68. In the press release, Daniese McMullin-Powell an ADAPT Organizer stated:

“I am a wheelchair-using, multi-disabled woman. Many of my friends and acquaintances with disabilities have been lost to Covid-19 because of early rationing of treatment, while preferring younger people without disabilities who are determined to be more valuable than those of us with disabilities. Many of us have become closer to terminal for lack of even standard, typical treatments and care during this pandemic,”

“Yet, according to the Oregon reported reasons people are requesting assisted suicide, every person receiving a lethal prescription is disabled; and pain is not even in the top five reasons, which are all disability-related concerns. Medicine and policy need to refocus on assuring advances in pain management, home care, and extending and supporting a better life.”

Darrell Lynn Jones, Interim Executive Director, National Council on Independent Living said:

“Our society places a high value on ability and stigmatizes significant disability. It's no surprise that those of us with a wide variety of disabilities see disability as a huge loss of worth and place in our society,”

“Some people with disabilities may go through a time where they feel they might be better off dead. As one struggles to get basic needs met, some people feel worn down. If assisted suicide had been legal in the past, even if it were supposedly only for those with 'terminal' conditions, I might not be here today. I’m grateful that assisted suicide was not legal back then, and I'm committed to keeping it that way. This is an important reason why the National Council on Independent Living opposes assisted suicide laws. NCIL is a leader in the disability rights movement, our political struggle for equal rights.”

Michelle Uzeta, Of Counsel, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund said:

"Where assisted suicide is legal, it is inevitable that some people's lives will be ended without their consent due to implicit bias, mistakes, or coercion. No safeguards, existing or proposed, are adequate enough to prevent these abuses, and the lack of oversight only increases the danger to already at-risk individuals,"

“Our priority should be on improving and expanding health care services that people with disabilities and all marginalized communities rely on to live, instead of making it easier to end our lives.

Diane Coleman, President/CEO, Not Dead Yet said:

"As a national, secular, social justice organization, Not Dead Yet strongly supports this bipartisan effort to speak truth to counter the many myths about legalized assisted suicide,"

"As Americans with disabilities, we are on the front lines of the nation's health care system that too often devalues old, ill, and disabled people. We are deeply concerned that profits are being prioritized over human needs. So we are grateful for this Sense of Congress that explains the dangers of mistake, coercion, and abuse under a public policy of assisted suicide."

Matt Vallière, Executive Director, Patients Rights Action Fund said:

"Congressmen Lou Correa, Brad Wenstrup, and all the cosponsors should be commended for introducing this new truly bi-partisan Sense of Congress resolution which highlights the inherently discriminatory nature of assisted suicide laws. A report from the National Council on Disability found that people living with disabilities are targeted for disfavored, deadly treatment and face greater barriers to accessing health care when assisted suicide is legal. We as a society should ensure that vulnerable people enjoy the same access to suicide prevention care and all health care as everyone else. I encourage lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation that exposes the dangers of assisted suicide,"

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges everyone to contact their member of congress and urge them to support Congressional Resolution 68.

Congressman Lou Correa (D-CA) said:

“Americans with terminal illnesses and disabilities deserve access to quality health care and should not have their opportunity for a dignified life taken away from them,”

“I have various concerns with assisted suicide laws and proposals that may adversely affect patients. This resolution intends to protect vulnerable patients across the country from any attempts to pressure them into assisted suicide.“

Congressman Brad Wenstrup said:

“Physician-assisted suicide devalues human life and puts the most vulnerable among us – seniors, individuals with disabilities, and people dealing with psychiatric diagnoses – at grave risk,”

“As a country, we must do better and instead focus on providing the most comprehensive medical care possible to individuals nearing the end of their lives. We cannot lose sight of the undeniable fact that every life has value.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the concerns of the disability rights movement and Congressmen Correa and Wenstrup. Contact your Member of Congress. Let's get H.Con.Res.68 passed.

Congressional Resolution 68: Addressing the Risk of Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide

The Congressional Resolution 68: Addressing the Risk of Legalizing Assisted Suicide was introduced on February 4, 2022. (Link to the Resolution)

H. CON. RES. 68 - 117th Congress (2021-2022) 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that assisted suicide (sometimes referred to using other terms) puts everyone, including those most vulnerable, at risk of deadly harm.

Whereas “suicide” means the act of intentionally ending one’s own life, preempting death from disease, accident, injury, age, or other condition;

Whereas “assisting in a suicide”, sometimes referred to as death with dignity, end-of-life options, aid-in-dying, or similar phrases, means knowingly and willingly prescribing, providing, dispensing, or distributing to an individual a substance, device, or other means that, if taken, used, ingested, or administered as directed, expected, or instructed, will, with reasonable medical certainty, result in the death of the individual, preempting death from disease, accident, injury, age, or other condition;

Whereas society has a longstanding policy of supporting suicide prevention such as through the efforts of many public and private suicide prevention programs, the benefits of which could be denied under a public policy of assisted suicide;

Whereas assisted suicide most directly threatens the lives of people who are elderly, experience depression, have a disability, or are subject to emotional or financial pressure to end their lives;

Whereas the Oregon Health Authority’s annual reports reveal that pain or the fear of pain is listed second to last (25 percent) among the reasons cited by all patients seeking lethal drugs since 1998, while the top 5 reasons cited are psychological and social concerns: “losing autonomy” (92 percent), “less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable” (90 percent), “loss of dignity” (79 percent), “losing control of bodily functions” (48 percent), and “burden on family friends/caregivers” (41 percent);

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled twice (in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill) that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, that the Government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting assisted suicide, and that such prohibitions rationally relate to “protecting the vulnerable from coercion” and “protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and ‘societal indifference’”;

Whereas clearly expressing that assisted suicide is not a legitimate health care service, Congress passed, with a nearly unanimous vote, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act to prevent the use of Federal funds for any item or service, including advocacy, provided for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the death of any individual such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;

Whereas a handful of States have authorized assisted suicide, but over 30 States have rejected over 200 attempts at legalization since 1994;

Whereas States that authorize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients do not require that such patients receive psychological screening or treatment, though studies show that the overwhelming majority of patients contemplating suicide experience depression;

Whereas the laws of such States contain no requirement for a medical attendant to be present at the time the lethal dose is taken, used, ingested, or administered to intervene in the event of medical complications;

Whereas such State laws contain no requirement that a qualified monitor be present to assure that the patient is knowingly and voluntarily taking, using, ingesting, or administering the lethal dose;

Whereas such State laws contain no requirement to secure lethal medication if unwanted or if death occurs before such medication is used;

Whereas such State laws do not prevent family members, heirs, or health care providers from pressuring patients to request assisted suicide;

Whereas such States qualify some patients for assisted suicide by using a broad definition of “terminal disease” and “going to die in six months or less” that includes diseases (such as diabetes or HIV) that, if appropriately treated, would not otherwise result in death within six months;

Whereas it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a six-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty;

Whereas reporting requirements vary by State, but when required, rely on prescribing physicians or dispensing pharmacists to self-report;

Whereas such reporting is neither conducted by an objective third party nor of sufficient depth and accuracy to effectively monitor the occurrence of assisted suicide;

Whereas there is an astounding lack of transparency in the practice of assisted suicide to the extent that State health departments and other authorities admittedly have no method of knowing if it is being practiced within the bounds of State laws and have no funding or authority to make such a determination;

Whereas some State laws actively conceal assisted suicide by directing the physician to list the cause of death as the underlying condition without reference to death by suicide;

Whereas the confidential nature of end-of-life decisions makes it virtually impossible to effectively monitor a physician’s behavior to prevent abuses, making any number of safeguards insufficient;

Whereas the cost of lethal medication is far less costly than many life-saving treatments, which threatens to restrict treatment options, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons, as has happened in several known cases and presumably many more unknown in which insurers have denied or delayed coverage for life-saving care while offering to cover assisted suicide;

Whereas access to personal assistance services such as in-home hospice and palliative care, home health care aides, and nursing care or assistance is regretfully limited and subject to long waiting lists in many areas, placing systemic pressure on patients in need of such personal assistance services to resort to assisted suicide; and

Whereas for all these reasons, assisted suicide undermines the integrity of the health care system: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should ensure that every person facing the end of their life has access to the best quality and comprehensive medical care, including palliative, in-home, or hospice care, tailored to their needs and that the Federal Government should not adopt or endorse policies or practices that support, encourage, or facilitate suicide or assisted suicide, whether by physicians or others.

More information on this topic:

The National Council on Disability: The Danger of Assisted Suicide Laws (Link).