April 15, 2008
TO MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA
CONSERVATIVE PARTY NATIONAL POLICY CONVENTION
NOVEMBER 13-15, WINNEPEG
The Conservative Party national convention will be November 13 - 15th in Winnipeg. Delegates will debate and vote on policy proposals. It is crucial that pro-family conservatives attend this convention to make our voices heard. Each riding association (Electoral District Association / EDA) must hold a Delegate Selection Meeting on a date from May 1, 2008 to August 15, 2008 to elect up to ten convention delegates, including one youth (under 23 years of age) delegate. The following information outlines how you can get involved to ensure pro-family delegates are elected to represent your riding (EDA) at the national convention.
1. Make sure your Conservative Party membership is up-to-date.
All party memberships expired at the end of 2007, except for those paid after October or multiple year memberships. If you have not renewed your membership in 2008, do so immediately. To renew or purchase a Party membership, go to the party web site at www.conservative.ca and click on the 'Become a Member' button. Membership fee is $10.00 per year. If you have questions about your party membership, call the national office at 1-866-808-8407.
In order to vote at the delegate selection meeting, a person must be a party member for at least 21 days prior to the meeting date. In order to stand for election as a convention delegate, a person
must be a member in good standing for at least 90 days prior to the delegate selection meeting.
2. Contact your local EDA president to get involved.
Indicate your support of the Conservative Party, ask how you can get involved, and ask if there are any upcoming membership meetings that you could attend. If you do not know how to contact your local riding association, call the national party office to find out, or, if your MP is a Conservative, call the MP constituency office to ask for the contact information for the riding association president.
3. Criteria to be eligible to stand for election to become a convention delegate
A person must be a member in good standing and have been a party member for at least 90 days prior to the date of the Delegate Selection Meeting. A person must fill out a delegate information form (ask EDA President for form) including the signature of a mover and seconder. The form must be submitted to the EDA President prior to the commencement of the Delegate Selection Meeting.
4. Voting to elect convention delegates shall be by secret ballot.
To register at the Delegate Selection Meeting, you must have two pieces of identification, one with a photo and one showing your residence address.
5. Convention delegates must pay their own convention registration fees.
Elections Canada requires political party convention delegates to pay their own convention registration fees. Riding associations, if they choose, can help with travel and accommodation expenses.
6. Report contact information for pro-family delegates
After your local riding Delegate Selection Meeting is held, report contact information for pro-family convention delegates to the national REAL Women of Canada office to facilitate future communication. Please send delegate's name, address, phone, email and the name of their riding by Email to realwcna@on.aibn.com or by fax to 613-236-7203.
February 18, 2008
CANADIAN MUSEUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CMHR), WINNIPEG, MANITOBA
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
FAMILIES WELCOME GOVERNMENT’S DRUG STRATEGY
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.
Canadian families welcome the $64 million anti-drug initiative and believe that it is long overdue. With two thirds of the funding directed toward prevention and treatment, the harmful effects on young lives is finally being recognized by the federal government and concrete action is being taken.
REAL Women of Canada has long advocated a multi level approach to this serious social and medical problem: education, enforcement, protection and treatment. The federal government’s strategy meets these basic requirements and offers hope for a better future for Canadians as we move towards a drug free and more productive society.
Please write to the Prime Minister thanking him for his government’s very firm and compassionate approach to this devastating problem:
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister
Office of the Prime Minister
Langevin Building, 80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613 941-6900
October 10, 2007
ONTARIO REFERENDUM ON MMP VOTING PROCEDURE
The Ontario election on October 10th will be important not only because it will determine who will run this province for another few years, but also perhaps even more importantly, will determine, by way of referendum, whether the province should adopt a new voting procedure, called the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP).
Surprisingly, the referendum vote on the proposed voting system has not received much news coverage. As a consequence, the public may not fully understand the system and its implications.
Attached is an article on the proposed MMP system, which hopefully clarifies what it is about and also will encourage debate on the subject. If you wish, send this article to your local newspaper for publication and also share it with your friends and neighbours in your community and your Church, synagogue, temple, etc. If is important that voters be aware of the implications of this referendum.
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.
Returning
Stability to Canada
word doc.
Returning
Stability to Canada
PDF doc.
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:
Mr.
Leon Earl Benoit MP
Vegreville-Wainwright, AB
Tel: (613) 992-4171
Fax: (613) 996-9011
E-mail: benoit1@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Garry Breitkreuz, MP
Yorkton-Melville, SK
Tel: (613) 992-4394
Fax: 613) 992-8676
E-mail: Breitkreuz.G@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Gord Brown, MP
Leeds-Grenville, ON
Tel: (613) 992-8756
Fax: (613) 996-9171
E-mail: Brown.G@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Colin Carrie, MP
Oshawa, ON
Tel: (613) 996-4756
Fax: (613) 992-1357
E-mail: Carrie.C@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Bill Casey, MP
Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley NS
Tel: (613) 992-3366
Fax: (613) 992-7220
E-mail: Casey.B@parl.gc.ca |
Mr. David Chatters, MP
Westlock-St.Paul, AB
Tel: (613) 996-1783
Fax: (613) 995-1415
E-mail: Chatters.D@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Michael Chong, MP
Wellington-Halton Hills, ON
Tel: (613) 992-4179
Fax: (613) 996-4907
E-mail: Chong.M@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
John Cummins, MP
Delta-Richmond East, BC
Tel: (613) 992-2957
Fax: (613) 992-3589
E-mail: Cummins.J@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Barry Devolin, MP
Haliburton, ON
Tel: (613) 992-2474
Fax: (613) 996-9656
E-mail: Devolin.B@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Gary Goodyear, MP
Cambridge, ON
Tel: (613) 996-1307
Fax: (613) 996-8340
E-mail: Goodyear.G@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Jim Gouk, MP
British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Tel: (613) 996-8036
Fax: (613) 943-0922
E-mail: Gouk.J@parl.gc.ca |
Ms
Helena Guergis, MP
Simcoe-Grey, ON
Tel: (613) 992-4224
Fax: (613) 992-2164
E-mail: Guergis.H@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Richard Harris, MP
Cariboo-Prince George, BC
Tel: (613) 995-6704
Fax: (613) 996-9850
E-mail: Harris.R@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Jeremy Harrison, MP
Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill, SK
Tel: (613) 995-8321
Fax: (613) 995-7697
E-mail: Harrison.J@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Loyola Hearn, MP
St.John's South-Mount Pearl, NS
Tel: (613) 992-0927
Fax: (613) 995-7858
E-mail: Hearn.L@parl.gc.ca |
Ms
Betty Hinton, MP
Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, BC
Tel: (613) 995-6931
Fax: (613) 995-9897
E-mail: Hinton.B@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Rahim Jaffer MP
Edmonton-Strathcona, AB
Tel: (613) 995-7325
Fax: (613) 995-5342
E-mail: Jaffer.R@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Brian Jean, MP
Fort McMurray-Athabasca, AB
Tel: (613) 992-1154
Fax: (613) 992-4603
E-mail: Jean.B@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Daryl Kramp, MP
Prince Edward-Hastings, ON
Tel: (613) 992-5321
Fax: (613) 996-8652
E-mail: Kramp.D@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Gary Lunn, MP
Saanich-Gulf Islands, BC
Tel: (613) 996-1119
Fax: (613) 996-0850
E-mail: Lunn.G@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Peter MacKay, MP
Central Nova, NS
Tel: (613) 992-6022
Fax: (613) 992-2337
E-mail: Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca |
Mr.
Dav |