Government Reform and Oversight Committee
February 4, 1998
Honorable Berkley Bedell
Mr. Chairman, and members of this Committee, I come before
you as one who has served with some of you, and one who has
experienced the challenges and opportunities you live with.
This testimony is about one of those opportunities which you
face at this time.
I also come before you as a patient who can thank alternative
treatments for disease for the fact that I am alive and well.
I left Congress because I came down with Lyme disease. My
Lyme disease was cured by a special whey from milk at a cost
of about $500 after conventional treatments costing an estimated
$25,000 were not effective. I also came down with prostate
cancer, and again it appeared that a S600 alternative treatment
was successful after it appeared that my surgery and radiation
at an estimated cost of $10,000 had not cured my cancer.
It breaks my heart to have to tell the Lyme disease patients
who contact me because their current treatments are not curing
them, that the treatment that cured me is not available to
them because of government regulations. This is a whey from
cow's milk!!!
The problem arises from a Supreme Court decision in United
States vs. Rutherford, in which lower courts ruled that a
person does have a legal right to use the medical treatment
of their choice. On appeal the Supreme Court ruled that there
was no such legal right because Congress had not authorized
it. The Court literally sent the issue back to Congress, but
so far Congress has failed to act to assure people of this
right. How sad! ! !
So now no one can use a treatment in the United States unless
the FDA decides that in their opinion it is "safe and effective."
And it costs millions and millions of dollars to go through
the FDA approval process. This freezes out anyone except giant
corporations, and makes it utterly impossible for any low
cost non-patentable medicines to get into the system.
HR-746, The Access to Medical Treatment Act is your opportunity
to solve this problem. . Let me explain the bill.
The bill provides that any person shall have the right to
be treated by whatever treatment that person desires, so long
as:
--- The treatment is provided by a properly licensed practitioner,
under the limits of the practitioner's license, who has examined
the patient.
--- There is no evidence that the treatment would be of danger
to the patient.
--- The patient has been informed of the contents of the
treatment, and any possible side effects, including a written
statement that says, "This treatment has not been certified
safe and effective by the Federal Government, anyone who uses
it does so at their own risk."
--- There have been no advertising claims made regarding
the efficacy of the treatment.
--- And the patient has signed a statement that they have
been informed of all of the above, and still wish to be so
treated.
This bill is tightly drawn. It will not change the FDA, nor
its approval process. Because of peer pressure, pharmaceutical
advertising, malpractice insurance problems, and insurance
policies, the vast majority of doctors will not change the
way they practice medicine in the short run. Firms who wish
to advertise and promote a medicine will still have to go
through the FDA approval process.
But it will break the current monopoly and make it possible
for people to try some of the alternative treatments such
as the ones I used.
I know that partisan politics is a factor in Congress today,
but this is a not a partisan bill. It is a PEOPLE'S BILL.
It was introduced by a Democrat, and your chairman a Republican
is a co-sponsor. In the Senate, it was introduced by Senator
Daschle, and Senator Lott is a cosponsor. In both houses there
are large numbers of co-sponsors from each party.
I attach a list of organizations that support this legislation,
and also information on a poll by a nationally recognized
polling firm of cardiologists and oncologists. The majority
of both said that they felt they should be permitted to use
unapproved drugs and devices as long as they carried a warning
about their unapproved status. The Access to Medical Treatment
Act includes this and it also includes several other protections.
There are those who say, "We have to protect the people."
What a crazy argument. Anyone can obtain rat poison off the
shelf that might kill them. But persons suffering from Lyme
disease are prohibited from obtaining the whey from cow's
milk that might cure them.
The issue here is pure and simple. The issue is whether informed
citizens should have the right to make their own health care
decisions, or whether a federal governmental agency should
make that decision for them. You do not need a poll to know
how people feel about that. People are crying out across the
land to get the government off their back and let them make
their own decisions.
We let people make their own decisions as to how to be helped
to end their lives, but we will not let them choose the method
of help to save their lives. My God! !! And we brag that this
is the land of the free.
Life is full of blessings and heartaches. My being alive
and healthy is a tremendous blessing for me. My heart aches
for those who are not as fortunate as I, and are suffering
and dying because our government-that is you says they cannot
be free to choose their own type of medical treatment.
But the greatest tragedy of all is that so far you good people
in Congress have not yet seen fit to pass this legislation
and correct this tragedy. I pray that this will change.
|
