February 18, 2008

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in April 2007 that the federal government will contribute 100 million dollars toward the building of the Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg.

He also stated that the federal government would contribute $22 million annually to cover its operating costs.

The Advisory Committee for the Museum, selected by the former Liberal government, consisted mainly of feminist, homosexual and regular Liberal stand-bys, such as a former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, former Liberal MPs, Cabinet Ministers and some Senators. The museum was intended to be a monument to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Charter of Rights.

This has raised concerns that the museum, with its left-wing Advisory Board, would be used as a powerful tool to champion the Liberal government’s interpretation of human rights, such as abortion rights, feminism, homosexuality, etc. with only some legitimate exhibits sprinkled here and there to give the museum the appearance of legitimacy.

Fortunately the Conservative government changed the Advisory Committee in October to include individuals, mostly business men and women, with no known bias on human rights issues.

This new Advisory Committee now wishes to take the views of the public into account in reaching its decisions on the scope and content of the Museum. As a result, a public consultation on the Museum is being carried out between February 5th and March 15, 2008. To further this project, the Advisory Committee has prepared a public consultation document that can be found at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/index_e.cfm. In the left bar, under the heading, Department, click Public Consultations. The document includes a number of questions which are intended to stimulate ideas for the Museum for Human Rights. The Committee also invites views not covered by the questions.

It is important that as many of us as possible, with a conservative perspective, provide input into this Museum as it will remain a part of the Canadian culture for many years to come. We want it to reflect basic human rights, not the trendy rights contributed by recent court decisions.

October 4, 2007

It is fitting that the federal government should announce its anti-drug strategy during National Family Week. The family pays the heaviest emotional and social price when drug addiction victimizes one of its members. Whether a parent’s child caring abilities are harmed by drug abuse, or whether a child’s development is irreparably damaged due to drug use, drug addiction is a terrible tragedy for families.

ONTARIO REFERENDUM ON MMP VOTING PROCEDURE

A provincial election will be held in Ontario on October 10, 2007. On election day, there will be two ballots handed to the voters. One will be to choose a candidate for the riding. The other ballot will be to ask the voter to respond to a referendum question on a new voting method proposed for the province.

As important as the election is to determine who will represent the riding for the next four years, perhaps the referendum question is of even greater importance because of its lasting impact on democracy.

The referendum question will ask: which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

The existing electoral system (first past the post), i.e. the party, which receives a simple majority, forms the government, or

An alternative electoral system, called the Mixed Member Proportional Vote (MMP).

The latter voting system is used, for example, in Germany and New Zealand.

The proposed MMP procedure raises concerns because, if implemented, it will undermine our democratic system of government.

What is the Mixed Member Proportional Vote?

This voting system will produce two classes of politicians: those elected by the voters (90 MPP’s) and those appointed by the political parties (39 MPPs). That is, the 129 seats in the Ontario legislature will be divided between those elected by the 90 individual ridings, and 39 seats chosen by the political parties themselves, according to the percentage of votes each party obtains in the election. Those appointed by the parties will obviously adhere to the party’s ideology because their appointment will be dependent on it. Consequently, these MPPs will not be interested in the views of the public or any of the public’s lobbying efforts: such concerns will be irrelevant to them as their role will be to support their party’s policies only.

The political parties’ lists are expected to alternate male and female candidates and provide a “balance” based on such attributes as gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. As a result, despite the fact that there may be a superficial diversity among the appointed candidates, i.e. gender or colour, etc., there will be absolutely no diversity in regard to their political views, since they will identify and promote only the policies of the party which appointed them as provincial members of the legislature.

The MMP system is the dream of the small parties, which is why the NDP and Green parties are pushing it. Any party with 3% of the popular vote will get a chance to be part of a coalition with the larger parties. Not surprisingly, the MMP system usually leads to more political parties. For example, before MMP was introduced in New Zealand in 1993, it had two political parties. Now it has six different political parties.

In the MMP system, elections are usually followed by weeks of closed-door deal making among parties to form a government ­ exactly the reverse of what happens after the first past the post elections, where the results are immediately announced.

A result of this secret deal making is that it creates unstable coalitions in order to form a minority government, often with a brief shelf life ­ inevitable with this voting system. The latter is one of the reasons why Italy, which has used a form of the MMP system since World War II, has just experienced its 62nd government and is now looking at ways to return to the more stable first past the post voting system.

The greatest beneficiaries of the MMP system, apart from the small parties, will be those from special interest groups, such as feminists, as the major parties will certainly place them at the top of their list for appointments. This is because feminist activists have constantly bemoaned the lack of “women” in the legislature, despite the fact that women are all different and have no commonality of experience. It is significant that it is not the gender of a candidate that matters to the male or female voters, but rather, his/her values and perspective on issues. Feminists, as part of a special interest group, have worked long and hard for the introduction of the MMP voting system, knowing that it will strengthen their special interest voice in government, since they often have difficulty getting nominated and elected on their own. With the MMP system, feminist activists will be assured of appointments to the legislature by the major parties, but they will not represent “women” at all, but only their own feminist perspective and that of their party. That is, the MMP system neatly by-passes the inconvenient fact that voters base their votes on the candidate’s views and platform, rather than on gender. This voting preference also applies to women voters who, as do men, vote according to their social, economic, cultural, educational and religious backgrounds, etc., not on gender.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has stated that in order for the referendum to pass, it must have 60% approval from the votes cast. Hopefully, this troublesome referendum to change our voting system will not succeed.*

September 5, 2007

October 11, 2006

SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION IN THE MEDIA

Media coverage of the same-sex marriage issue has been horrendous. The public has been deprived of valuable information as the debate has been deliberately framed in terms of human rights and Charter rights only. Coverage of the Parliamentary Committee that studied the issue was inadequate as the Committee, after hearing over 500 witnesses, dealing with over 250,000 letters from the concerned public and traveling thousands of miles across the country, was not permitted to table its report in Parliament. Concerns for the well-being of children, presented before the Committee by REAL Women, Dr. Margaret Somerville, and others, were ignored.

The traditional position on marriage did not receive fair exposure except for columns by a few stalwart journalists who put their careers on the line to report the facts against the promotion of same-sex marriage. Some columnists were and continue to be harassed by their editors for doing so. Many have received nasty hate mail and threats to their lives and safety. Journalists who dared exercise their right to freedom of expression by opposing the redefinition of marriage were abandoned by their fellow journalists who feared for their own status in the media industry.

Journalists who uphold the integrity of the profession today need our support. When you read their articles we ask that you encourage them personally. Write letters to the editor defending their point of view. These journalists often stand alone, never knowing when the axe will fall to end their employment as a result of a complaint from a reader whose feelings are hurt. We have our own effective network of information on pro-life, pro-family issues but the public at large is often misled if they are not tapping into this network. Brave journalists writing for major media outlets serve their country well during these difficult times for the family, and they need our support.

Whenever a columnist writes in support of life, family and traditional marriage, i.e., a man and woman united together to the exclusion of all others, please write in support of them. We can do no less in these troubling times where freedom of speech and opinion, although being a “Charter right” is being trodden on by media obsession with political correctness.

A.10.06

Aug. 7, 2006

COUNTER-ATTACK BY FEMINISTS

Since 1973, the federal Status of Women has given millions of dollars to feminist only groups and promoted feminist policies on the false premise that women in Canada are victims of a patriarchal society. Although some women may be victims, the vast majority of Canadian women are perfectly able and are capable of making their own decisions about their lives. They do not need nor want the Status of Women to speak on their behalf.

With the election of the Conservatives in January 2006, REAL Women believed that the time had come to examine this serious abuse of taxpayers' money, as well as the hugely unnecessary House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. (The latter had recommended that there be a 25% increase in funding to feminist only group.)

REAL Women sent a letter dated April 4, 2006, addressed to the Prime Minister as well as to "friendly" MPs from various political parties requesting that this entire matter be objectively examined.

REAL Women's efforts to disband the Status of Women and its outrageous policies and funding, however, has recently been met by a massive counter offensive with letters pouring in to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and individual MPs from across the country expressing concerns about the disbandment of the Status of Women.

Although we have no way of proving it, we are confident that this well-coordinated campaign has been instigated by the Status of Women itself, whose future is on the line, since its efforts may no longer be required.

There is no one better placed administratively to coordinate this counter offensive than the Status of Women which has first-hand information on the developments and has on record all the feminist groups and shelters across the country. Further, an application has been received under the Access to Information Act for a record of all correspondence received by the Status of Women on this issue. The purpose of this is to expose (and pressure) MPs who have written to the agency to support REAL Women and its perspective on the Status of Women.

The theme of these many letters is that "shelters for abused women and children protect them from the violence." (No mention of the studies which indicate that half of domestic violence is instigated by the women.) The letters also claim that women need the support of the Status of Women to work for pay equity, marital property and senior women's income, etc.

Never is it mentioned that the Status of Women, including women's shelters themselves, are matters of provincial jurisdiction only. They do not fall within federal jurisdiction and there is no reason why the federal government is funding so generously these provincial issues and organizations. Further, there is no reason why the Status of Women portfolio is included in the Cabinet.

In order to offset this national feminist effort to protect feminist control in Canada, it would be appreciated if you would write immediately to the Prime Minister, relevant Members of his Cabinet (list below), and your MP and the opposition leaders who are all being inundated with letters to support feminist policies and funding of the Status of Women.

Please write to the following:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building, 80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613 941-6900

The Hon. Beverley J. Oda, PC, MP
Minister of Status of Women
Jules Leger Bldg.
12th Floor, 15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5
Fax: 819 994-1267

The Hon. Rona Ambrose, PC, MP
Minister of the Environment
Environment Canada
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
North Tower, 28th Floor
10 Wellington Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3
Fax: 819 953-3457

The Hon. Diane Finley, PC, MP
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Place du Portage, Phase IV, 14th Floor
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0J9
Fax: 819 994-0448

The Hon. Josée Verner, PC, MP
Minister of International Cooperation and
Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages
Place du Centre, 12th Floor
200 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0G4
Fax: 819 953-8525

The Hon. Carol Skelton, PC, MP
Minister of National Revenue and
Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Connaught Building, 7th Floor
555 MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
Fax: 613 952-6608

The Hon. Bill Graham
Interim Leader of the Liberal Party
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: 613 996-9607

The Hon. Jack Layton
Leader of the NDP Party
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: 613 947-0868

Apr. 25, 2006

UPCOMING VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

REAL Women of Canada is part of a coalition called Defend Marriage Coalition consisting of twelve pro-family groups across Canada. This Coalition was established in order to influence the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage that was promised by Prime Minister Harper during the 2006 federal election campaign.

Prime Minister Harper stated, during the campaign, that if he were elected, he would re-visit the issue of same-sex marriage in Parliament. Subsequent to the election, he stated that he would raise this issue, not right away, but “sooner, rather than later.”

The delay in calling for this vote in Parliament provides us with a window of opportunity to ensure a winning vote in support of traditional marriage.

The Coalition has decided, therefore, as part of its strategy, to write to all the religious leaders in Canada requesting that they become personally involved in this crucial issue.

Attached is the letter in both French and English that was sent to all the Canadian religious leaders.

Please feel free to distribute copies of this letter to any individual churches that you think appropriate.

English Version - Click Here

French Version - Click Here

January, 2006

EARLY VOTING IN THE 2006 FEDERAL ELECTION

In most parts of Canada we cannot depend on good weather either on voting day, January 23rd or at the time of the advance polls, January 13th, 14th and 16th to encourage supporters to cast their ballots.

The key to any hoped for success on our part, in the forthcoming election however, may be in getting our supporters to the polls. We do have the numbers, in supporters - but it is getting them to cast their votes that is a major concern and a hurdle to overcome.

Fortunately, this problem has been greatly resolved for this forthcoming winter election, due to a little known amendment to the Canada Elections Act. This amendment now allows voters to cast their ballot on any day including Saturdays and Sundays (even Christmas day and New Year's day) up until 6:00 pm Tuesday, January 17, 2006.

This amendment stipulates that in order to allow voting by way of a "special ballot", all 308 local Elections Canada offices must be opened every day until Tuesday, January 17, 2006, during the following hours:

Weekdays (Monday to Friday) 9:00 am - 9:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm
Sunday 12:00 pm - 4:00 pm

Voting by "special ballot" requires only that a voter whose name is on the voters' list shows up at his or her riding's electoral office and present identification, preferably photo ID, such as a driver's license or passport, in order to vote. Even if that person's name is _not_ on the voter's list he / she can still vote if 18 years of age and a Canadian Citizen and can provide suitable identification.

To determine the address of your local Canada Elections office please telephone 1-800-463-6868

This provision is particularly helpful for those who will be out of the country on election day or on the advance polls, or for those who, for health reasons, cannot sustain the crowds and the line-ups on election day.

This "special ballot" provision also permits voting by mail. The registration kits to vote by mail can be picked up at your local riding's Canada Elections office or alternatively, by writing to or faxing toll free in Canada and the United States:

Elections Canada P.O. Box 9830, Stn T, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 5W7
Fax: 1-800-363-4796

Your completed registration form and "special ballot" can then be faxed to Elections Canada at 613-998-8393 or toll free in Canada and the United States at 1-800-363-4796 or mailed to the Elections Canada address above.

The completed registration form and ballot however, must be received by 6:00 pm January 17, 2006. The earlier one acts the better.

These relatively unknown provisions in the Canada Elections Act may be a key to our electoral success in this federal election.

For further information, please go to the Elections Canada web site www.elections.ca

December, 2005

ELECTION 2006

The expression "it is the best of times, and the worst of times" aptly describes the situation in Canada today. On the one hand, our economy is soaring and we have little unemployment. As a result, we are living in the best of material times. Yet, simultaneously, we are also living in a time of moral decadence: abortion on demand, the legalization of same-sex relationships as marriages, the cultural and legal acceptance of homosexuality despite its destructive ramifications, both psychologically and medically, rampant sexual promiscuity and euthanasia, legalized drug use and legalized prostitution just around the corner.

We are surely living in troubled times. We can shrug our shoulders and do nothing, or we can do something.

REAL Women has chosen to take action. Together with the other members of our Defend Marriage Coalition: Campaign Life Coalition, Catholic Civil Rights League and Canada Family Action Coalition, REAL Women has prepared a pamphlet entitled, "Returning Stability to Canada," which sets out the positions of the three main political parties on some of the core issues. We have tried very hard in this pamphlet to be as fair and objective as possible. It's up to the reader of the pamphlet to reach his/her own conclusions.

Moreover, the pamphlet is non-partisan and, therefore, can be freely distributed throughout the Churches without it affecting the church's tax-exempt status.

Please read the pamphlet and then distribute it as widely as possible to family, friends, churches and social and professional groups --- whenever and wherever people meet. Let others draw their own conclusions, either for or against our position. At least they will then be making an informed decision, not one defined by the secular media.

The pamphlet is available electronically from REAL Women's national office for those who wish to make their own copies. Alternately, hard copies can be sent to you directly from the national office. In the latter case, it would be appreciated if you could send a donation if possible to help cover the cost of printing and mailing the pamphlet.

This election is pivotal for our nation. The results of this election will deeply affect the world in which our children and grandchildren will live. We can only do our best to help them.

October 26, 2005

A Statement opposing Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide issued by 100 doctors and lawyers has been sent to all Members of Parliament regarding Bill C-407.

REAL Women of Canada fully supports this statement and hopes that legislators will respond to this vital information by voting against Bill C-407.

EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

A Joint Statement by Doctors and Lawyers

1. Introduction

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of putting an end to a patient's life for the purpose of ending the patient's suffering. Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is the death of a patient as a direct consequence of 'help' by a doctor. (For a definition of terms used, please see the end of this document.) Whatever the intentions claimed for euthanasia or PAS, this is nothing less than killing a patient.

• The ethical question remains - can it ever be right to kill, even with the intention to relieve suffering? The law of most countries is clear on this. To kill a patient, even with the intent to relieve suffering, is considered homicide. For this reason euthanasia is illegal in Canada and in most countries worldwide. Currently, only the Netherlands and Belgium have legalized euthanasia. PAS is also legal in the Netherlands and in Oregon, USA. Switzerland has legalized assisted suicide, even if performed by a non-physician.



• Euthanasia, once legalized, would result in patients being killed who had not requested to die. The experience of the Netherlands in legalizing euthanasia points to the fact that euthanasia, once legalized, cannot be effectively controlled. Euthanasia, initially intended for certain groups such as patients with terminal diseases will soon be performed on other groups of patients including the elderly, incapacitated patients, patients suffering with emotional distress, the disabled, and even children and newborn babies with disabilities who cannot ask for euthanasia. There is clear evidence from the Netherlands that at least one thousand patients including children and newborn babies are being killed every year without their expressed consent and/or against their will.

2. Sanctity or inviolability of life

• Human life has an intrinsic value. The Judaeo-Christian tradition holds that man is created in the image of God and therefore human life has an intrinsic dignity, sanctity and is inviolable. In that tradition, the principle that one should never kill an innocent human being is based on this very dignity and sanctity. From a non-religious point of view this principle would be based on the dignity and inviolability of human life, independent from the existence of God.



• The Hippocratic Oath affirms this same principle, not to prescribe a deadly drug and not to give advice causing death nor to procure an abortion. Hippocrates, a Greek physician lived in the fifth century BC and the principle of sanctity of life therefore predates Christian teaching. The Declaration of Geneva by the World Medical Association (1948) states: 'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning'. The 'right to life' has been included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The same principle is also enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: 'Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally…'



• The principle of sanctity or inviolability of life prohibits intentional killing but it does not require that life must be preserved at all cost, for example through invasive or burdensome treatment, such as ventilation, against the wishes of a competent patient or where treatment would be futile, for example aggressive chemotherapy in advanced metastatic cancer. Doctors may have to decide whether a given treatment is proportionate or burdensome and disproportionate. The doctor will find it usually possible to make a correct judgment as to the means used in treatment by studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources. Refusal of burdensome treatment on the part of the patient is not equivalent to suicide.



• Intentionally hastening a person's death by omitting some medical interventions - 'passive euthanasia' - is entirely different from omitting disproportionate or futile treatment. The act of withholding or withdrawing disproportionate treatments (because they are disproportionate or futile) is different from the act of omitting proportionate treatment with the 'active' intention to hasten death. The difference from euthanasia remains that if one accepts the principle of sanctity or inviolability of life, that the patient's life is always considered worthwhile however the treatment may not always be considered worthwhile.

3. Patient autonomy will decrease once euthanasia or PAS has been legalized.

Despite all the claims made about 'patient autonomy' by proponents of euthanasia, ultimately, one or more doctors will inevitably end up making a value judgment, which they should not make, as to whether a patient's quality of life is such as to preserve or terminate his or her life.

• If euthanasia became legalized, the decision whether to terminate or preserve a patient's life or to assist with PAS will rest with the medical profession. To legalize euthanasia and PAS would dramatically increase the power doctors have over their patients and severely decrease patient autonomy.



• The German physician Christoph William Hufeland wrote in 1806: 'It is not up to [the doctor] whether life is happy or unhappy, worth while or not, and should he incorporate these perspectives into his trade the doctor could well become the most dangerous person in the state.' (quoted in WJ Smith. Forced exit. Spence Publishing, Dallas 2003. p84.)

4. We are convinced that the following would happen if euthanasia became legalized:

4.1 Euthanasia, once legalized, could not be effectively controlled. If euthanasia became legal, patients would be killed who had not requested to die.

• Euthanasia, initially intended for certain groups such as patients with terminal diseases will sooner or later be performed on other groups of patients including the elderly, incapacitated patients, patients suffering with emotional distress, the disabled, and even children and newborn babies with disabilities. A change in legislation will lead to further devaluing of human life, especially for the vulnerable members of society. 'Euthanasia, once accepted, is uncontrollable for philosophical, logical and practical reasons. Patients will certainly die without and against their wishes if any such legislation is introduced.' (Statement by the UK Association for Palliative Medicine & the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services on proposals to legalize euthanasia and PAS. 2003)



• Three surveys done over a 10-year period by Dutch researchers show that in Holland, where euthanasia has been legalized, at least 1,000 patients are killed every year through euthanasia without consent or without request. This constitutes murder. The first report, published in 1991 showed that in 1,000 cases (equivalent to 0.8% of all deaths) physicians administered a drug with the explicit purpose of hastening the end of life without an explicit request by the patient. Two further reports from 1996 and 2001 confirm these findings. In 2001, still 1000 deaths (0.7% of total) were due to patients killed against their wishes or without explicit consent. (Van der Maas PJ et al.: Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life. Lancet 1991; 338: 669-74. Van der Maas PJ et al.: Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995. NEJM 1996; 335: 1699-705. Onwuteaka-Philipsen BJ et al.: Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001. Lancet online 17 June 2003. http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art3297web.pdf)



• Dutch doctors currently only report half of all cases of euthanasia to the authorities. With such a low rate of reporting, Dutch claims of adequate control ring hollow. In a recent analysis, the notification rate increased from 18% in 1990 to 45% in 1995 to 54% in 2001. Asked why doctors did not report cases of euthanasia to the authorities - even though they were required to do so by law - doctors responded that this requirement was considered burdensome and time consuming. More worrying obviously would be the possibility that patients had been 'euthanised' by doctors in violation of the regulations and the cases were not reported in order to avoid criminal prosecutions. (Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD et al. Dutch experience of monitoring euthanasia. British Medical Journal 2005; 331: 691-3)



• The 'slippery slope' is shown by what happens in Holland and in Belgium: 'Dutch doctors have gone from killing the terminally ill who asked for it, to killing the chronically ill who ask for it, to killing the depressed who had no physical illness who ask for it, to killing newborn babies because they have birth defects, even though, by definition, they cannot ask for it.' (Wesley J Smith. Forced exit. Dallas 2003. p 111.)



• Euthanasia does not stop with adults in the Netherlands. 9% of all neonatal deaths in the Netherlands occurred following the administration of drugs with the explicit aim of hastening death. This was noted in two surveys in 1995 and 2001. At least 2.7% of deaths of children between the ages of 1 and 17 in the Netherlands are due to euthanasia. (Vrakking A et al. Medical end-of-life decisions made for neonates and infants in the Netherlands. 1995-2001. Lancet, 2005; 365: 1329-1331 Vrakking A et al. Medical end-of-life decisions for children in the Netherlands. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2005; 159: 802-9.)



• In Flanders, Belgium, more than half of all neonatal deaths were due to doctors making 'end of life decisions', usually stopping the treatment of babies. However, 7% of all neonatal deaths were due to injection with a lethal dose of medication. Most of the babies had severe congenital malformations and/or were premature. ¾ of all neonatal physicians were prepared to engage in 'euthanasia' of newborn babies. (Provoost V. et al Medical end-of-life decisions in neonates and infants in Flanders. Lancet 2005; 365: 1315-20.) In 2002, Belgium legalized euthanasia for adults who are suffering 'constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain', and who are sufficiently conscious to make the request to die. To kill babies is illegal in Belgium. (Daily Telegraph; April 9th, 2005)

4.2 To legalize euthanasia or PAS would put immense pressure on those who are ill and especially those who feel that - due to illness, disability or due to expensive treatment required - they have become a burden to others and to society, especially to relatives.

• This is shown by the following case example from Holland: A 65 year old woman, suffering from incurable cancer, was discharged from hospital. Her doctor discussed euthanasia with her. The patient objected to euthanasia on religious grounds. However, with progressing cancer, she became more ill and considered herself a burden to her husband. She requested euthanasia and died. The case is reported and the public prosecutor couldn't see anything wrong. (Dr Peter Hildering, President, Dutch Physicians League in a presentation given at the House of Lords, London, UK, May 7th, 2003)



• In a study of terminally ill patients those patients with substantial care needs were more likely to feel being an economic burden to others. This group was more likely to consider euthanasia or PAS. (Emanuel EJ et al. Understanding economic and other burdens of terminal illness: the experience of patients and their caregivers. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2000; 132: 451-9.)



• In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) was legalized in 1997. A recent survey found that, with the increasing acceptance of PAS, the percentage of patients who died through PAS because they felt a burden to others (not necessarily the only reason, however) increased from 12% in 1998 to 26% in 1999 and to 63% in 2000. (Sullivan AD et al. Legalized physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, 1998-2000. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344: 605-607.) When Oregon legalized PAS, only a minority of patients requested PAS because they felt a burden to others. However, with the increasing acceptance of PAS, nearly two-thirds of those dying through PAS cite being a burden to family, friends or caregivers as one of the main reasons for requesting PAS.

  4.3 To legalize euthanasia or PAS would bring about profound changes in social attitudes to illness, disability, death, old age and the role of the medical profession. Once euthanasia is legalized, euthanasia will become increasingly an accepted 'treatment option' alongside the currently standard medical or surgical treatment.

• With increasing acceptance of euthanasia, anyone with a medical condition - not just a terminal one - may consider euthanasia as a 'treatment option'. Euthanasia then would become an acceptable treatment option for conditions such as depression, stress, loneliness, fear of impending disease or fear of decline, but also for disabled children or adults. Euthanasia would become part of the armamentarium of medical treatment alongside established medical treatments such as pain relief, antidepressant medication, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.



• Dr Karel Gunning, a Dutch General Practitioner states: "Once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution."



• The profound changes in social attitudes can be compared to the changes that occurred after the criminal code sanctions against abortion were removed as being unconstitutional. As abortion is now an option for any woman who finds herself pregnant, euthanasia or PAS, once legal, will become an option for anyone who is (or considers himself/herself to be) ill. After abortion was legalized in Canada in 1969, the first year in which statistics were available, 1970, 11,152 abortions were performed. In 2002, 105,154 abortions were performed. This startling increase indicates a profound loss of respect for the sanctity (or inviolability) of human life. Once the law permits the taking of human life the stage is set for the destruction of all vulnerable human life because the law serves as a guideline to the conscience. What is legal then becomes perceived to be morally permissible.

  4.4 To legalize euthanasia and PAS will ultimately undermine medical care, especially palliative care and seriously undermined the doctor-patient relationship. It is claimed that euthanasia is about the 'right to die' a good death. However, euthanasia is not about the 'right to die'. It is about giving doctors the right to kill their patients. We as physicians refuse to become the executioners of our patients.

• Legalizing euthanasia would mark a fundamental change in doctor-patient relationship where patients will have to wonder whether …'the physician coming into my hospital room is wearing the white coat of the healer ... or the black hood of the executioner.' (British Medical Association statement - End of life decisions, 2000).



• The change in attitude among doctors who participate in euthanasia is graphically illustrated by the following conversation between Lord McColl, a professor of surgery, and a Dutch doctor about what it was like doing the first case of euthanasia. 'Oh,' he said, 'we agonized all day. It was terrible. However, he said the second case was much easier, and the third - I quote - 'was a piece of cake'. (Lord McColl in a speech in the House of Lords, UK; Lords Hansard, October 10th, 2005.)



• It is easier and cheaper to kill a patient than to treat. We have serious concerns about the provision of adequate palliative care services if euthanasia were legalized. We believe that euthanasia and PAS would undermine the efforts of good palliative care and the immense progress that has been made in palliative medicine in alleviating distressing symptoms and pain in dying patients. In the Netherlands, 84 % of those requesting euthanasia are in pain, and 70 % have difficulty breathing. A report on end-of-life care in the US found that less than 20 per cent of Oregon hospitals had palliative care programs, and it gave Oregon a Grade E for end-of-life care. (Baroness Finlay, Professor of Palliative Care in a debate in the House of Lords, Hansard; Oct. 10th, 2005, column 23f)

5. The 'wish to die' is rarely a truly autonomous decision.

The wish to die is more often an expression of depression, pain or poor symptom control rather than a genuine wish to die. The desire to die and the will to live frequently changes over time, especially if pain and depression have been treated.

• In Oregon, where PAS has been legalized, nearly one in two patients who initially requested physician-assisted suicide (PAS) changed their mind after initiation of treatment, such as pain control, prescription of antidepressant medication or a referral to a hospice. However, among those patients, where no active symptom control was initiated, only 15% of those who initially requested physician-assisted suicide changed their mind. (Ganzini L et al. Physicians' experiences with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 557-63.)



• In a survey of terminally ill patients, a total of 60% supported euthanasia in a hypothetical situation, however only 10.6% reported seriously considering euthanasia or PAS for themselves. Factors associated with being less likely to request euthanasia were feeling appreciated, factors associated with being more likely to request euthanasia were depression, significant care needs and pain. At follow-up interview two to six months later, half of all terminally ill patients who had considered euthanasia or PAS for themselves changed their minds, while an almost equal number began considering these interventions. (Emanuel EJ et al. Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers. JAMA 2000; 284: 2460-8.)



• Among terminally ill patients occasional wishes that death would come soon were common in nearly half of all patients but only 9% of these individuals acknowledged a serious desire to die. The desire for death was strongest in those with severe pain and low family support but most significantly in those with severe depression. Nearly 60% of those patients who expressed a desire to die were depressed whereas depression was found in only 8% of patients without such a desire. The authors conclude: 'The desire for death in terminally ill patients is closely associated with clinical depression - a potentially treatable condition - and can also decrease over time. Informed debate about euthanasia should recognize the importance of psychiatric considerations, as well as the inherent transience of many patients' expressed desire to die'. (Chochinov HM et al. Desire for death in the terminally ill. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1995; 152: 1185-91)

6. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide - not the 'good death' hoped for.

One of the main arguments in favour of euthanasia and PAS is that it gives patients the chance of dying a 'good death'. However, the reality is very different. Dutch research shows that very distressing complications occur not infrequently when euthanasia and PAS are carried out. Rather than dying quickly, some patients took several days to die.

• Even though Dutch doctors have the longest experience with euthanasia of any country in the world, still distressing 'side effects' occur: In 18% of cases where a patient attempted physician-assisted suicide the doctor had to intervene and kill the patient. The reasons for this were that the patient awoke from coma, or had difficulty taking all the oral medication, vomited after taking the first medication or fell asleep before taking all the medication. Furthermore, in nearly half of the cases which started as PAS the patient did not die quickly enough and the doctor had to terminate the patient. While it was planned for the patient to die within half an hour after taking the lethal drugs, 19% of patients took 45 minutes to seven days to die. (Groenewoud JH et al. Clinical problems with the performance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 551-6.)



• There were fewer problems observed in euthanasia as opposed to PAS but still 10% of patients took much longer to die, some up to seven days. In both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide a small number of patients awoke from coma and had to be terminated. This certainly is not the 'good death' people hope for. (Groenewoud JH et al. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 551-6.)

7. Conclusion

While euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) may superficially appear attractive, they have profound adverse effects on the social fabric of our society, on our attitude towards death and illness and on our attitude towards those who are ill or have disabilities.

Euthanasia, once legalized, cannot be adequately controlled. The Dutch experience shows, that around 1,000 patients are killed every year against their wishes, or, without consent, by their doctors. Euthanasia, initially intended for a certain group - for example patients with terminal illness - will soon spread to other groups, to those who are ill or may even only consider themselves to be ill, and even to newborn babies with disabilities.

Euthanasia and PAS place increasing pressure to agree to be killed on those who are elderly or sick or who consider themselves - due to disease, disability or expensive treatment - to be a burden to relatives or to society. The 'right to die' soon becomes the 'duty to die'.

With increasing acceptance of euthanasia and PAS, there will be a change in perception of illness, death and medical treatment. The example of legalized abortion shows what happens. Every woman who finds herself pregnant now has to consider whether to continue with the pregnancy or to opt for an abortion. Similarly, once legalized, euthanasia or PAS will become a 'treatment' option for those who are diagnosed with any illness, not just a terminal one, and who consider themselves to be ill.

It is always cheaper (and quicker) to kill than to treat. To legalize euthanasia will undermine medical care and especially palliative care. Where euthanasia and PAS have been legalized (for example in the Netherlands or in Oregon) the provision of palliative care appears to be poor or inadequate.

To legalize euthanasia will adversely affect the doctor-patient relationship. Despite all possible legal safeguards, patients will be wondering whether the doctor is wearing the white coat of the healer or the black hood of the executioner. As physicians, we never want to become the executioners of our patients.

As physicians and lawyers we strongly oppose any attempts to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

Authors of this report
Hans-Christian Raabe, MD, MRCP (UK), MRCGP (UK), General Practitioner; John Shea, MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; W. Joseph Askin, MD, FCFP, Family Physician; Christena Beintema, MD, General Practice; Michael Bentley-Taylor, Cardiologist; Henry John Block, BA, MD, FRCPC, Pathologist; Riina Ines Bray, BASc, MSc, MD, CCFP, MHSc (C), Assistant Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto; Howard Bright, MD, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Family Practice, UBC; André Bourque, MD, Head of Family Medicine and Interim head of Palliative Care, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal; Luke Chen, MD, Internal Medicine Resident; John A. J. Christensen, MD, FRC.P(C), FRANZCP; T.B. Costin, MD, Family Medicine; Dr. Kathleen W. Craig, MB, ChB, General Practitioner; Dr. William S. R.Craig, BM, BCh, FRCS (C), Gynaecologist; Donald J. Curry, MD, MPH, CCFP; Anna Felstom, MD, FRCP (C), Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, Psychiatry; Randall W. Friesen, MD, FRCSC, FICS, Clinical Lecturer in Surgery, University of Saskatchewan; Catherine Ferrier, MD, CCFP, FCFP, Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University; Sheila Rutledge Harding, MD, FRCPC, Professor of Hematology, University of Saskatchewan; Robert Hauptman, BMSc, MD, Chief, Department of Family Medicine Sturgeon Hospital; Kevin M. Hay, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCPI, MRCGP, CCFP, FCFP, DCH, DObst, DRCOG, Family Physician; Christin Hilbert, BMedSc, MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Hon. Dr. Grant Hill, P.C.; David Hook, MD FRCP (C), Anesthesiologist; Will Johnston, MD, Co-chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC; Lydia Kapiriri, MD, MMed, PhD, Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto; James Cecil Kennedy, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston; Margaret C. Keresztesi, MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Kathleen Kerr, MD, Diploma Environmental Health; David Kopriva, MDCM, FRCS(C), Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Saskatchewan; George Kubac, MD, FRCP(C), FACC, Cardiologist; W. André Lafrance, MD, FRCP(C), Dermatologist; Fok-Han Leung, MD, Family Medicine; Tim Lau, MD, FRCP(C), Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa; Dr François Lehmann, Director of Family Medicine, Université de Montréal; Rene Leiva, MD, CM, CCFP (CoE), Palliative Care; Barbara Ann MacKalski, MD, FRCP(C), Internist; Karen L McClean, MD, FRCPC, Infectious Diseases Specialist; Dr McFadden, Family Medicine; William Mitchell-Banks, BM BCh, D(Obst)RCOG, FCFPC; Dr A Mol; John M Mulhern, BA, BDentSC, LDM MSD, CertEndo, Endodontist; Dr. A.J.B.Nazareth; Ruth Oliver, MB,ChB, FRCP (C), Psychiatrist; H Robert C Pankratz, MD, Palliative Care Physician; Mikulas Pavlovsky, MD, General Practitioner; Donald J. Peters, Assistant Professor, Anesthesia, University of Manitoba; Paul Pitt, MD, CCFP, FCFP, Lecturer DFCM, University of Toronto, Past Chief of Family Medicine; Anke Raabe, MD, FRCR (UK), Radiologist; Antoine G. Rabbat, MD, FRCSC, FACS, Vascular and Thoracic Surgeon; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Martin Reedyk, MD; Edwin John Rix, MB, ChB, LMCC, CAFC; Carmelo Scime, MD, Family Physician; Dr. Graham Stratford, General Practitioner; Dylan A. Taylor, MD, FRCP (C), FACC, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Alberta; Karen Thompson, MD, Ophthalmologist; Peter Thompson, MD, Anaesthetist; Edward J. Tworek, MD, FRCS (C), FACS, FICS, RCMP Health Services Officer; R L Walley, FRCSC, FRCOG., MPH (Harvard), Honorary Research Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Memorial University of Newfoundland; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist.

Endorsement
Ruth Ross, Barrister/Solicitor, London; Esther Abraham, Barrister/Solicitor, Mississauga; Peter Anderson, Barrister/Solicitor, Vancouver; Chris Becker, Barrister/Solicitor, Abbotsford; Norman J. Bossé, Barrister/Solicitor, Saint John; W. Ted Catlin, Q.C., Barrister/Solicitor, Vernon; Stellanie M. Criebardis Hyer, Barrister/Solicitor, Calgary; Teresa Douma, Barrister/Solicitor, Elmira; Paul Faris, Lawyer, Medicine Hat; Marie-Louise Fast, Barrister/Solicitor, Richmond; Peter Fenton, Barrister/Solicitor, Saskatoon; David Garabedian, Law Student, Oak Brook College of Law; Nancy Toran Harbin, Barrister/Solicitor, Toronto; Richard M. Harding, Barrister/Solicitor, Calgary; Gary Hewitt, Sessional Lecturer, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia; Sandra M. Jennings, Lawyer & Mediator; J. Scott Kennedy, Barrister/Solicitor, Winnipeg; Walter Kubitz, Barrister/Solicitor, Calgary; C. Gwendolyn Landolt, Barrister/Solicitor; Richmond Hill; Elizabeth Lockhart, Barrister/Solicitor, Ottawa; Ron McDonald, Barrister/Solicitor, Lethbridge; Lisa McManus, Lawyer, London; David W. McMath, Barrister/Solicitor, Fredericton; Michael Menear, Barrister/Solicitor, London; Dr. Bradley Miller, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario; Peter Mogan, Barrister/Solicitor, Vancouver; Mark Mudri, Lawyer, Adelaide (AUS); JoAnne Nadeau, Lawyer, Ottawa; Paul Nicholson, Barrister/Solicitor, Oshawa; Joseph Paradiso, Barrister/Solicitor, Woodbridge; Charles J. Phelan, QC, Barrister/Solicitor, Winnipeg; Brian D. Scott, Retired Lawyer, London; Roy Sommerey, Barrister/Solicitor, Kelowna; Shawn M. Smith, Barrister/Solicitor, White Rock; Geoffrey Trotter, Law Student, University of British Columbia; Ken Volkenant, Barrister/Solicitor, Surrey; Andrea Minichiello Williams, Barrister, UK; Prof. William Wagner, Director - Center for Ethics and Responsibility, Cooley Law School, (USA); Mervyn White, Barrister/Solicitor, Orangeville.

Some definitions. All definitions of euthanasia agree that euthanasia means shortening the patient's life usually based on the belief that the patient would be better off dead.

• Euthanasia is the active, intentional termination of a patient's life by a doctor who thinks that death is of benefit to the patient.
• Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia at the request (or at least with the consent) of the patient.
• Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia carried out against the wishes of a competent person.
• Non-voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia carried out on incompetent patients such as babies or patients with dementia.
• Active euthanasia is the intentional taking of a patient's life by a doctor who thinks that death is of benefit to the patient.
• Passive euthanasia is the intentional termination of a patient's life by omission, for example by withdrawing treatment.
• Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) - is where a doctor helps the patient to take his or her own life. In the Netherlands, no distinct moral difference is being made between PAS and euthanasia. The practical difference may not be significant - there is little difference between a patient taking a lethal medication into his mouth and swallowing it and the doctor placing the lethal medication into the patient's mouth and the patient swallowing it.

Further Reading. John Keown Euthanasia, ethics and public policy. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

October 20, 2005

ASSISTED SUICIDE BILL C-407 SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 31

Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde introduced the Private Members' Bill C-407 on
assisted suicide on January 15, which is scheduled for second reading on October
31, 2005. The bill is extremely dangerous as it permits the killing of an
individual by another on request, even though he/she may not even be terminally ill.

REAL Women of Canada sent the following letter to every Member of Parliament, in
both official languages. It reads as follows:

October 14, 2005

«MP»

«Riding»

«Address1»

«Address2»

Re: Bill C-407 - Private Member's Bill

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity)

Dear «Title»,

REAL Women of Canada is a national women's organization which was federally
incorporated in 1983. We support the equality of women as well as the protection
and promotion of human rights for every individual from conception until natural
death.

Our organization is deeply concerned about the private member's bill, the "right
to die with dignity" Bill C-407, introduced by Bloc Québécois MP Francine
Lalonde, on June 15, 2005. We understand the bill is scheduled for second
reading on October 31, 2005.

Our concern about this bill is that it leaves vulnerable individuals without
legal protection from possible abuse.

This conclusion is based on the fact that Bill C-407 provides that a person may
be assisted in the deliberate termination of his/her life providing only that
he/she is 18 years of age, appears to be lucid, is not necessarily terminally
ill, but experiencing "severe physical or mental pain" for which he/she may have
refused treatment.

Such a definition easily describes those who may be depressed or under emotional
pressure from others to end their lives.

Such individuals require medical care, counselling, and legal protection, not a
quick death. If such individuals are properly treated they may well go on to
live enriched, meaningful and productive lives.

Compassion and care, both physical and emotional, must be provided by society,
not Bill C-407 that will allow only a swift and deliberate termination of life.

Please keep our deep concerns in mind when Bill C-407 comes up for second reading.

Yours truly,

Lorraine McNamara
National President

Please write to:

The Right Hon. Paul Martin, PC, MP
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A2
Tel: (613) 992-4211
Fax: (613) 941-6900
E-mail: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Irwin Cotler, PC, MP
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Justice Canada
East Memorial Building
4th Floor, 284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON, K1A OH8
Tel: (613) 992-4621
Fax: (613) 990-7255
E-mail: Cotler.I@parl.gc.ca

and to:

Your MP

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

to object to this dangerous bill.

July 20, 2005

HOMOSEXUAL EDITORIAL CONFIRMS EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR EFFORTS

The editorial in the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (July 14, 2005) Christian right sets up shop points out that even though the contemptible Bill C-38 was passed this week, our efforts working against it have been worthwhile since they caused our forces to become organized and deeply engaged in the political process.

The editorial describes us as the sleeping giant that has been awakened by
Canada's debate about same-sex marriage. It claims that our engagement in the
political arena in this debate threatens to change the face of Canadian politics
over the next generation.

Most of us were aware that we were mightily effective during the C-38 battle.
This editorial confirms it. We were only defeated by the unscrupulous
manoeuvres of a corrupt and manipulative government which refused to allow the
democratic process to function during the debate.

There will be a federal election within the next six months - the results of
which may lead to the repeal of Bill C-38. We can and will make a tremendous
difference in the outcome of that election, providing we continue to work
together, as we did on Bill C-38.

We did impressive work undermining Bill C-38, and we can and will do impressive
work during the 2006 federal election campaign with God's Grace. Let us pray
and prepare ourselves for that battle.

E M E R G E N C Y !!!

April 20, 2005

PASSING ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL C-38 -- A LIBERAL PRIORITY

The Liberals have made the passing of the anti-marriage Bill C-38 a priority before the government is expected to fall on May 19th, with a new election in the offing.

Consequently, the Liberal government is pushing for a rush vote on second reading of Bill C-38, either today or tomorrow, so that it can go to Committee next week, when the House of Commons is in recess.

To do this, the Liberals have introduced a motion today (April 20th) "that the question [second reading] on Bill C-38 be now put to a vote." Once the bill has passed second reading, it then goes to Committee.

The Committee apparently has been instructed to hear only a handful of witnesses, and has been prohibited from traveling across Canada. This will enable the Committee to make its report to the House of Commons for third and final reading, and third vote on the Bill when Parliament resumes sitting on May 2nd.

Once it is passed on third reading, the first week of May, it is anticipated that it will be rushed through the Senate by the huge Liberal majority there.

We MUST PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. This is a real EMERGENCY.

EVERYONE must pressure his MP, even if that MP has already spoken on the Conservative amendment to Bill C-38, to speak to the bill on the second reading debate to delay the vote on second reading today and tomorrow as intended by the Liberals.

Some 40 Conservative MPs have not spoken on this bill at all. Their names are listed below and they, as well as all other MPs, must be besieged with telephone calls, faxes and emails encouraging them to speak to this bill to delay the second reading. The future of marriage in Canada depends on it.

EVERY Conservative MP and pro-family Liberal must be urged IMMEDIATELY to speak to this bill at this time of emergency. The Conservatives who have not yet spoken on Bill C-38 are as follows: