Free Essays on Euthanasia: Euthanasia and Pain's Effect on Doctors Prescribing Pain Relief Drugs to Terminally Ill Patients." The question he raised is a testable proposition. Language nearly identical to that found in the Pain Relief Promotion Act has been enacted in ten states in the last few years – and the effect of such language on the use of powerful pain-relieving drugs like morphine has been dramatically positive. There is considerable data from states passing new laws against assisted suicide since 1992. During this period, ten states passed new laws banning intentional assisting suicide (or strengthening existing bans), including language affirming the use of medications to control pain even when doing so might unintentionally increase the risk of death. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) morphine use data show that per capita morphine use in these states has consistently increased thereafter, sometimes dramatically (in Iowa, Rhode Island, and South Dakota, use of morphine doubled). The average change in morphine use in these ten states was an increase of more than 50%. During the same period, four states passed laws against assisted suicide that did not include language affirming pain control like that found in the federal Pain Relief Promotion Act. Here too, there is little evidence of a significant “chilling effect” on morphine use; but per capita consumption of morphine tended to remain about the same or increase only slightly. In these four states, where the new bans on assisted suicide lacked the kind of positive pain control language found in the Pain Relief Promotion Act, morphine use increased by an average of 3%. Returning to the ten states with language similar to that of the Pain Relief Promotion Act, one might reasonably predict that the impact of passing the federal law would be even more positive for pain control, for the following reasons:1. These states have effectively passed new bans (or established new civil penalties for doctors) where none previously existed. By contrast, in the vast majority of states, the Pain Relief Promotion Act establishes no new prohibition: it is already a state crime (and/or a violation of state medical licensing standards) to assist suicide, and therefore an automatic violation of the law Federal Controlled Substances Act to use a federally controlled drug in such a practice.

Topic > Free Essays on Euthanasia: Euthanasia and Pain's Effect on Doctors Prescribing Pain Relief Drugs to Terminally Ill Patients." The question he raised is a testable proposition. Language nearly identical to that found in the Pain Relief Promotion Act has been enacted in ten states in the last few years – and the effect of such language on the use of powerful pain-relieving drugs like morphine has been dramatically positive. There is considerable data from states passing new laws against assisted suicide since 1992. During this period, ten states passed new laws banning intentional assisting suicide (or strengthening existing bans), including language affirming the use of medications to control pain even when doing so might unintentionally increase the risk of death. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) morphine use data show that per capita morphine use in these states has consistently increased thereafter, sometimes dramatically (in Iowa, Rhode Island, and South Dakota, use of morphine doubled). The average change in morphine use in these ten states was an increase of more than 50%. During the same period, four states passed laws against assisted suicide that did not include language affirming pain control like that found in the federal Pain Relief Promotion Act. Here too, there is little evidence of a significant “chilling effect” on morphine use; but per capita consumption of morphine tended to remain about the same or increase only slightly. In these four states, where the new bans on assisted suicide lacked the kind of positive pain control language found in the Pain Relief Promotion Act, morphine use increased by an average of 3%. Returning to the ten states with language similar to that of the Pain Relief Promotion Act, one might reasonably predict that the impact of passing the federal law would be even more positive for pain control, for the following reasons:1. These states have effectively passed new bans (or established new civil penalties for doctors) where none previously existed. By contrast, in the vast majority of states, the Pain Relief Promotion Act establishes no new prohibition: it is already a state crime (and/or a violation of state medical licensing standards) to assist suicide, and therefore an automatic violation of the law Federal Controlled Substances Act to use a federally controlled drug in such a practice.