When you or someone you love hears the words “you have cancer,” your world stops. The flood of emotions is overwhelming.
But what comes next is just as hard. You begin a fight for your life. And in that fight, time is everything. You don’t have the luxury of waiting for years of bureaucratic reviews and regulatory approvals. You need options. Now.
I’m living that fight. I have Stage 4 Cholangiocarcinoma, a rare and aggressive liver cancer. For nearly three years, I’ve been undergoing treatments that are brutal and exhausting. I live scan-to-scan, hoping something, anything, might work. Almost every Friday for 18 months, I have waited for test results to see whether I could survive that afternoon’s five hours of neurotoxin infusions. I’ve signed every consent form that comes my way, knowing full well the possible side effects: organ failure, permanent damage, even death.
I’m not asking for pity. I’m asking you to clear the path for doctors to help us.
That’s why I support House Bill 701, New Hampshire’s Right to Try expansion bill. Simply put, this bill—sponsored by Rep. Lisa Mazur—would make New Hampshire the best state in the country for access to experimental treatments for people with terminal illness.
HB 701 gives terminally ill patients a chance to access experimental treatments that might save their lives. It also allows remote prescreening and makes it easier to give informed consent through remote signing. These are simple but critical reforms that bring modern tools to the most desperate moments in a patient’s life.
The bill’s only organized opposition, the plaintiff attorney association, opposes HB 701 because it allows patients like me to waive civil liability through a careful process of informed consent. But let us be clear: these protections are not about shielding bad actors. They are about making experimental treatments available to patients who otherwise would have no option but death.
During the House hearing on this bill, Dr. Bess Stillman testified about how the threat of civil liability blocked her late husband, Jake, from receiving a promising experimental treatment for his throat cancer. While she and Jake were ready to sign any waiver, the threat of liability still made treating him too legally risky.
“Somehow, it was less risky to let Jake die,” she testified.
Every treatment I’ve had carried risk. None were “safe.” I’ve had radioactive beads, designed and manufactured just across the state line by Boston Scientific, delivered to my liver. I’ve undergone five full anesthesia procedures for tumor ablation. A month ago, a hockey puck–sized continuous flow chemotherapy infusion pump was implanted under my ribs, manufactured in Newton, Mass. This region is exploding with medical innovation. Why shouldn’t New Hampshire lead the way in letting patients benefit from it?
We aren’t choosing between safe and unsafe. We’re choosing between possible and nothing.
If doctors fear being sued for offering a potentially life-saving option, they may decide it’s not worth the risk. That’s not just a loss for me and my family, it’s a loss for every family facing a terminal diagnosis.
HB 701 strikes the right balance. It respects the patient’s right to try lifesaving measures, ensures informed consent, and provides legal certainty for those offering help. It is a necessary, reasonable, and urgently needed reform. I urge lawmakers to put politics and special interests aside and pass HB 701 for patients, for families, and for the principle that every person deserves a fighting chance.
Medical care is often more art than science. I’m not asking lawmakers to guarantee success. I’m asking them to remove barriers that keep doctors from trying. Hope is not a legal risk. It’s a human right. Please pass HB 701.
