Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ...

I55Dr. Brill. I think there would be less difficulty with a statute outlawino:morphine than with a statute outlawing all opium products.I think it would be relatively simple to outlaw morphine, althoughthere would be, as has been brought out here, professional questionsraised both on the grounds of familiarity with the morphine and onthe grounds that there is a reluctance to have such things legislated.But this is not, as I see it, the major problem.Mr. Wiggins. The point was made by Dr. Eddy that the medicalprofession would require a period of orientation and education. Howlong do you suppose would be appropriate for that purpose?Dr. Brill. If I might add to that question, it might be well to alloworganized medicine to come in and make its comments.Mr. Wiggins. They will be invited to do so.(See Exhibit 1.)Dr. Brill. Yes.Chairman Pepper. Yes.Dr. Brill. I hesitate to speak for organized medicine, but it certainlycouldn't be done in less than several years to the satisfaction ofmost people.Mr. Wiggins. That is all the questions I have.Chairman Pepper. Mr. Steiger?Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Doctor, the summation of your testimony and that of Dr. Eddy andDr. Seevers is that there is no medical reason for retaining the naturalanalgesic, whatever the medical term is. Now, Doctor, as a layman, itoccurs to me that we have had painted here this morning a rather unflatteringpicture of the medical profession, because we say we arriveon a conclusion based on a question posed in 1951, the conclusion beingthat in a physical emergency in which opium was not available themedical profession could readily adjust. Now, we understand, andrather thoroughly, from the testimony that it would be, one, inconvenientand it would be what is termed justifiable for natural resistanceto any change, it would be difficult to stop cough.Now, I think, it seems to me unfair to the medical profession—wouldn't want to just leave it lying there—that the inconvenience, thecomfortable familiarity with the existing natural opiates, all of thesethings of themselves are so important that the evils that the opiatenow represents are going to be somehow set aside. It would be easy forthose of us in the political arena—and I am sure some of us will—tocall this an emergency situation. We truly have an emergency. Thereare many areas in which the emergency is very genuine. The chairman,I think, defined it pretty well at the outset.I would hope that possibly—obviously the most comfortable thingfor us, and we are interested in our comfort, too—would be for themedical profession to come forth and say now is the time and for themedical profession to declare this an emergency and for the medicalprofession to say these synthetics work, they will use them, those whohave coughs will perhaps have to cough a little.I don't honestl}'^ know what the clinical situation is. But I knowthat, again, just having heard this and having considered myself afriend of medicine, I think we are painting medicine accurately, perhaps,but unfairly nevertheless.