On Sept 24, 2026, US Representative Greg Murphy (R-NC 3rd) and Representative Lou Correa (D-CA 46th) introduced a House Congressional Resolution purposely mischaracterizing MAID in an effort to have Congress condemn MAID. A Congressional Resolution does not have force of law, but it does express the abiding sentiment of the Congress on a particular matter.
Congressman Murphy is a licensed doctor and as such his blatant vitriol against MAID replete with countless errors and lies is testimony to his dishonesty. His hypocrisy is blatant because while practicing medicine, he had no issues with resorting to terminal sedation which is a convenient fig leaf when a doctor feels a patient is suffering at end of life and the most humane course of action is to administer a lethal dose of morphine under the pretext of the Double Effect. But Correa and Murphy don't want patients themselves to control their own end-of-life destiny. Their attitude is one of typical imperial paternalism. Who are they do deny a willing, suffering, mentally competent patient the right to determine when "enough is enough."
Among other lies, the resolution recites a commonplace misunderstanding:" [MAID]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."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course the elderly are more likely to want to access MAID because of the immutable correlation between age and physical ailments, such as cancer and heart failure. And the law does not permit a disabled person to access MAID UNLESS that person is suffering from a terminal illness. Similarly, the prescribing and consulting doctors are required to determine whether the patient is suffering from depression which can be addressed by anti depression medication. And ultimately let us not forget, the ultimate safeguard is the patient themself must self administer the medicine, unlike the Assisted Dying laws in other countries.
Furthermore, Murphy's proposed sense of Congress includes the whopper: "Whereas it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a 6-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty."
Congressman Murphy seems willing to close his eyes to the reality that doctors are called upon to assess the patient's likely life expectancy when the patient opts for hospice. Both MAID and Hospice require that the medical consensus is that the patient has 6 months of less. And contrary to Murphy's fabricated insult to doctors' best professional conclusion, hundreds of thousands of Americans opt for hospice because the most likely outcome is death within 6 months. Statistically, 80% of patients in hospice do die within 6 months. Furthermore, very often people opt for MAID when they have perhaps a month or mere weeks of needless suffering and a life robbed of what existence enjoyable.
Murphy then sinks into fantasy when he claims a lack of transparency in the 14 US jurisdictions with MAID. This is hogwash. All states (except Washington state due to a budget shortfall) collect reams of data from doctors and regularly publish detailed analyses of everyone who uses MAID. Had Murphy bothered to read any of the annual reports, he would have learned how mistaken he is.
The bottom line is that Murphy and Correa prefer to allow people to suffer needlessly at end of life and to deny them some dignity when they are wracked by a debilitating, painful end with cancer or ALS
Dying Right NC asks all readers to write immediately to your congressperson in the House to ask politely that HCR 121 be soundly rejected. Murphy should not be allowed to spread lies and exaggerations while he is allowed to kill patients through terminal sedation. Please contact your Federal congressman asap.
The language of HCR 121 follows.
Rep Greg Murphy
119th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 121
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 24, 2026
Mr. Murphy (for himself and Mr. Correa) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
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 or an instance of ending one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally;
Whereas “assisting in a suicide”, sometimes referred to as death with dignity, end-of-life options, medical 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 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 (30.4 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” (89.9 percent), “less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable” (89.3 percent), “loss of dignity” (68.7 percent), “losing control of bodily functions” (45.4 percent), and “burden on family friends/caregivers” (45.7 percent);
Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled twice (in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) and Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997)) 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 of 1997 (Public Law 105–12; 111 Stat. 23) 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 270 attempts at legalization since 1994;
Whereas studies show that a significant percentage of patients who pursue assisted suicide in legal states are experiencing treatable but overlooked mental health conditions, like depression or anxiety;
Whereas such State laws 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 do not prevent family members, heirs, or health care providers from pressuring patients to request assisted suicide and do not require that family members be notified of the request for lethal drugs;
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 anorexia) that, if appropriately treated, would not otherwise result in death within 6 months;
Whereas it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a 6-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty;
Whereas reporting requirements vary by State, with some States issuing no reports even though required by law, 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 all 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 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.
