The Senate is expected to vote soon on a bill that could make the living for terminally ill patients much more painful. Grossly misnamed the "Pain Relief Promotion Act," the bill, which passed the House last year, would make it a federal crime for any doctor to prescribe morphine or any other controlled substances with the intent to hasten a patient's death. Convicted doctors would serve a minimum 20 years in prison. Opponents in the Senate have planned to filibuster the bill. But if it passes anyway, President Clinton should veto it.

The bill's Republican backers have pointed to several recent cases of abuse. For example, the highly publicized case of Dr. Robert Weirtzel, a Utah man who was convicted earlier this month for administering overdoses of morphine without familial consent which resulted in the deaths of five patients with senile dementia. But although steps need to be taken to prevent these horror stories from happening in the future, this bill would do much more harm than good.

Specifically, the bill would inevitably discourage doctors from prescribing appropriate levels of pain medication to patients. In addition to the harsh penalties that come with conviction, the bill would earmark $80 million to encourage the Drug Enforcement Administration to actively investigate physicians. Although the bill attempts to distinguish pain relief from doctor-assisted suicide, the line between relieving suffering and causing death, especially when a patient is so close to the end, is often incredibly difficult to determine. Far be it from the legislators in Washington to claim the foresight to know what dosage is appropriate or inappropriate for countless numbers of unique medical situations. Indeed, recent studies have shown that U.S. doctors tend to undermedicate, not overmedicate, for pain.

Secondly, the bill's understated purpose--to override Oregon's 1994 Death With Dignity Act--is an inappropriate infringement on a state's right to choose whether or not to legalize euthanasia. In 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously decided that, while it was constitutional to ban euthanasia, it was not unconstitutional for a state to pass a law making euthanasia legal. The onus of deciding the issue is on the states, not the federal government.

The court concluded its decision by writing, "Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society." So far, Oregon's state law is one of a kind. But should other states decide to follow suit, their citizens should be free to debate and decide the issue, unhampered by unwanted federal legislation.