[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 87 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  THE ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT ACT

                                 ______


                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 30, 1994

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, with 
Representatives Norton, Hinchey, Furse, Owens, Pallone, and Lipinski, 
the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This legislation will allow 
greater freedom of choice in the realm of medical treatments by making 
alternative treatments more accessible to the public.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents a significant 
departure from the current paternalistic practice of medicine. It is 
based on two beliefs about our current health care system: First, the 
system limits patients' choices of medical treatments to conventional 
modalities; and second, the system effectively discourages the 
development of alternative therapies that could help treat illnesses 
that often are unresponsive to conventional medicine. This act opens up 
the health care system and market, under controlled conditions, to 
informed consumers.
  There is a compelling need for this legislation. I have met many 
doctors who could better treat their patients with this legislation and 
many patients who desperately want more treatments available to them. 
Former Congressman Berkley Bedell knows first-hand the importance of 
this legislation and served as a catalyst for its development. While in 
Congress, Berkley Bedell acquired a well-deserved reputation for 
intellectual honesty and commitment to principle. Sometimes he appeared 
out of step with conventional opinion and subsequently proved to be 
ahead of his time. He questioned the status quo and asked if there was 
a better way to accomplish a task.
  Congressman Bedell's Lyme disease forced him to leave the House at 
the end of the 100th Congress. After trying several unsuccessful rounds 
of conventional treatment consisting of heavy doses of antibiotics 
costing him thousands of dollars, he turned to an alternative 
treatment. He credits this treatment with curing his disease. This 
treatment, which is actually a veterinary treatment, consisted of 
nothing more than drinking processed whey from a cow's milk. After 2 
months of taking regular doses of this processed whey, his symptoms 
disappeared. He estimates that the total cost for this alternative 
treatment was no more than a few hundred dollars.
  In spite of Congressman Bedell's amazing recovery, and stories from 
others who found this same method successful, the treatment can no 
longer be administered because it has not gone through the FDA approval 
process. This is just one example, highlighted by an eminent 
individual, of the numerous treatments that may prove beneficial but 
cannot be tried without enactment of this legislation.
  Shortly after Congressman Bedell recovered from Lyme disease, he 
discovered he had prostate cancer. Again, he found conventional 
treatments unsuccessful and turned to alternative medicine. This time 
he had to leave the country to obtain treatment because the FDA 
precluded his access to the treatment at home. Once again, alternative 
therapy proved successful for Mr. Bedell, and he has been free of 
cancer for 4 years.

  Mr. Speaker, there are Berkley Bedells all across our country who are 
desperate for cures that conventional medicine simply does not seem to 
effectively provide. The tragedy is that individual practitioners, 
scientists, smaller companies, and others who lack the financial 
resources and expertise to confront the arduous and costly FDA approval 
process to get these nonharmful and possibly helpful or even lifesaving 
treatments on the market. The expense of the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] approval process precludes all but large 
pharmaceutical companies from undertaking this endeavor.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act gives patients the right to 
obtain nonharmful alternative treatments that have not been approved by 
the FDA from licensed medical doctors, chiropractors, osteopaths, and 
naturopaths. The intent of this bill is merely to extend freedom of 
choice to medical consumers under controlled situations and grant 
individuals access to alternative treatments that are currently off-
limits. Practitioners who now use alternative, nonharmful treatments 
risk losing their licenses for trying to heal their patients with 
unconventional treatments. The bill's purpose is twofold: First, to 
allow increased opportunities for the trial of alternative, non-FDA 
approved treatments that may generate effective new approaches to 
treating illness; and second, to increase access to alternative, non-
harmful treatments.
  As with any effort to challenge the status quo there is skepticism 
about the implications of opening up the market to alternative 
treatments. We have worked hard to develop a bill that gives patients 
and their health care practitioners the freedom necessary to treat 
their illnesses while including the protections necessary to safeguard 
consumers from dangerous treatments and unqualified practitioners.
  It is not my intention to dismantle the FDA or to weaken its 
authority to regulate the safety and efficacy of most drugs in this 
country. This legislation does not attack the FDA for the valuable role 
is plays in helping America maintain a top notch, high-quality health 
care system. Unfortunately, the expensive and extensive FDA approval 
process does prevent low-cost, alternative treatment from gaining 
access to the market.
  The FDA would remain solely responsible for protecting the health of 
the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. Before a treatment receives 
the Government's stamp of approval and has a claim of efficacy 
attached, it must make is through the FDA approval process.
  This bill requires full disclosure to patients of the contents and 
possible side effects of treatments. In addition, the strict claims 
section in this bill mandates that patients are notified that the drug 
has not been proven safe of efficacious by the Federal Government.
  The medical treatments prescribed must have no evidence of causing an 
adverse impact on individuals' health. However, if any treatment is 
found to cause harm, the treatment must be immediately reported to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Service and it cannot be utilized again.
  Finally, the greatest concern expressed about this proposal is the 
issue of consumer protection. This is an essential part of this 
legislation and I, as much as anyone, want to protect sick and 
vulnerable individuals from negligent charlatans who would prey on 
their misfortunes and fears for personal gain. The Access to medical 
Treatment Act is armed with these protections.
  In order to protect consumers, this bill limits those qualified to 
administer treatments to properly licensed chiropractors, medical 
doctors, naturopaths, and osteopaths. Most importantly, the bill 
strictly regulates the circumstances under which claims regarding the 
efficacy of a treatment can be made. It prohibits all advertising and 
labeling claims and any other claims by individuals for whom the 
underlying intent of promoting the treatment might be linked to 
personal financial gain.
  There can be no marketing of any treatment administered under this 
bill. This eliminates the incentive for anyone to try and use this bill 
as a bypass to the process of obtaining FDA approval.
  I want to protect consumer safety, but I also want to promote 
consumer freedom of choice. Individuals, especially those facing life-
threatening and debilitating illness, should have the option of trying 
alternative treatments so long as they are informed of possible side 
effects and there is no evidence that the treatment is harmful. Opening 
the health care system to alternative treatments can help patients, 
complement conventional treatments, contain costs, and generate new 
ways to treating illness. This choice is one for the consumer, not the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that after debate and possible revisions 
from other Members that this legislation will increase the number of 
possible solutions available to patients.

                          ____________________