The Canadian Medical Association has come out strongly against allowing its doctors to practice euthanasia or physician assisted death.

In a move which stunned observers at the annual convention, the CMA passed a strong resolution stating that “The Canadian Medical Association declares its members should specifically exclude the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.”

Calling the practice “horrifying,” Dr. Daniel MacCarthy of Vancouver proposed the resolution which was supported by 93-74 count.  Eighteen delegates abstained.

Dr. Ted Boadway, policy director of the Ontario Medical Association, was disappointed saying that the resolution did not allow “tolerance for a difference of opinion.”

The resolution against euthanasia puts the CMA in line with American, Dutch, French, German and British medical organizations.

Cheryl Eckstein, president of the Compassionate Healthcare Network (CHN), a Vancouver-based group which opposes doctor assisted death, called the resolution an “incredible step towards victory.”

“We applaud the CMA, who have now established a policy which is compatible with various medical associations,”  said Eckstein.  “Their policies prove that, universally speaking, the majority of the world populations of physicians are vehemently opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide.”

Eckstein went on to say that the media coverage of this reality has been scant.
Generally, the media is attracted to publishing sensational accounts of hard cases, and doctors who commit criminal acts in the name of so-called mercy killing.  Nevertheless, a review of positions taken by various medical associations prove there is strong opposition to legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide,” Eckstein continued.

Despite this recent success, CHN remains wary of federal government intentions regarding assisted suicide.  Federal Justice Minister Alan Rock claims that his government remains committed to a free vote on the issue, likely next year.

In the meantime, CHN has prepared a brief to be presented to the Senate, which has begun hearings on euthanasia.  Cheryl Eckstein will present their brief Euthanasia; A Right for Canada, before the Senate in late September.

Organizations which reject euthanasia

British House of Lords

British Medical Association

American Medical Association

Canadian Medical Association

Declaration of Madrid

Dutch Physician’s League

(European) Convention for the Protection of Human rights and fundamental Freedoms

Federal Republic of Germany

German Medical Council

French National Council of the Order of Doctors

L’Assistance aux Mourants (Standing Committee of Doctors of the European Community)

World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life

Universal Declaration on Human Rights

World Health Organization

UN Directives

–Developed countries should be giving 4% of their total foreign assistance toward population control, up from their present 1.5%.

–World-wide spending on population control must increase from $4 billion in 1994 to $17 billion by the year 2000.

–Developing countries should spend 20% of their national resources and 20 % of international assistance towards population control.

–Primary healthcare should include family planning services as essential elements.

–All women should have access to modern, safe, effective family planning methods.

–Women must be “centrally involved” in setting the population control agenda.

UN pushes world gov’t

Paul Nielsen, British Columbia

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players:  They have their exits and their entrances…William Shakespeare

Lately there has indeed been much ado about nothing, as delegates from 183 countries prepare to gather in Cairo for the United Nations-sponsored International Conference on Population and Development.  With the world stage set, all will play their part.  What fools these mortals be to think they can change a script which has already been written and approved by those in charge.

In June 1992 a similar conference took place at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.  When it ended it was abruptly hailed as an exercise in futility.  Canadian Maurice Strong, the conference organizer, claimed:  “Not a single thing has changed in the underlying conditions which have produced our global crises.”

Reflecting on the last 22 years since the first world conference on environment and development in Sweden, something seems very strange.  Since that time the environmental crisis has deepened while the disparity between the world’s rich and poor continued to grow at an alarming rate.

Although the industrialized countries have agreed to aid environmentally sound developments, no timetable has been established.  “As soon as possible” is the commonly accepted phrase.

So, where does the average citizen fit into this global picture?  Or are we merely pawns in a game, diverted by moves created by Manipulators who control the Master Plan?

If history is any criteria for future development, its lessons are invaluable.  If one considers the lives lost in world wars, or perhaps more accurately, lives sacrificed as a means to justify the end, it is conceivable that we are, indeed, controlled by a powerful force bent on world domination.  Now if the people of all the so-called “free” nations could be convinced that a “One World Government” is the only solution to the myriad of world problems, it would not take much for one very powerful group to control the world’s wealth, power and resources without much opposition.  The United Nations would be the ideal catalyst for such an endeavour.

Although we consider ourselves “free,” it may be that our democracy is only a deception.  After all, today all the so-called “democratic” countries follow the same monetary system devised and controlled by a hand-picked elite, who determine the distribution of the world’s wealth and in turn control government, the media and the population.

Nonetheless, while our society continues to degenerate as part of the Master Plan to break down and weaken the basic unit of society, the family, while undermining the sense of morality which has for generations given man faith in the future, we lose our focus.

We become confused.  We are caught in a web of fear, afraid to protest what is wrong because of repercussions, afraid to write what may be unaccepted, afraid to speak up in case we put our jobs in jeopardy or merely because we have become apathetic to a situation which we feel unable to influence or control. When we speak up we take a chance of being rebuked.  And yet, only when the Truth is known will the world be truly free.

We cannot lull ourselves into complacency by trusting those in charge.  For as long as we allow world conditions to deteriorate we must share the responsibility.

We cannot all be present in Cairo but that does not matter. Because here in British Columbia, in Canada, indeed in North America, society is slowly but surely falling apart.  While those in charge divert our attention for a short while to a world summit, they will count on us forgetting our daily struggle in lieu of another bigger play, stated for their benefit and performed as a diversion.

While the media keeps emphasizing the theme of the conference as “Population Control,” many know that translates to “Control of the population’s minds and spirits.”  And it’s working.  There is only one way to halt its success.  We must object.  For in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “To sin by silence when they should protest—makes cowards of men!”

Injunction bespeaks authoritarian agenda

Round one of the NDP government harassment of Ontario pro-lifers ended August 30 when Mr. Justice George Adams ruled that pro-life picketing could be banned, or curtailed,  in certain locations.

Lawyers for the 18 pro-life defendants see the judgement as a victory of sorts.  Attorney General Marion Boyd had asked the court to forbid picketing within 500-ft radius of 23 locations in the province.  The judge refused.  All across the province, pro-lifers are free to continue their faithful witness outside abortion-providing hospitals.  Pro-lifers can picket freely outside abortionists’ offices (at only a few, named, abortionists’ offices is there a restriction of 25 feet).  The only locations where the judge completely granted the government’s request are a handful of abortionists’ homes.

In Toronto, however, the injunction allowing a 30-ft and 60-ft drop picket-free zone at three abortuaries will seriously impede the ability of sidewalk counsellors to communicate with women heading in for abortions.  Pro-lifers will have to find new ways to ensure that women know there is still help available to them so that they will not kill their babies.  These vulnerable women are the real losers in this court decision.

What we must remember that this ruling is the first round.  Eighteen pro-lifers are still the focus of the government’s attempt to silence the pro-life movement.  They still face a trial which will take countless hours of legal preparation and much money.  These eighteen are not fighting a legal battle for themselves; they are fighting to ensure that all of us will retain the right to speak up for the unborn.  They deserve our wholehearted support.

We must remember that this court case has very little to do with abortion.  It is all about politics.  The Bob Rae government is seeking to appease its supporters before calling an election.  The NDP knows it will not lose any votes by harassing pro-lifers, indeed, it can  only increase its support from the radical feminists and the abortion industry.

Today it is the pro-lifers at the mercy of a government that will not tolerate democratic dissent.  How extraordinary it is that those who are trying to silence the pro-lifers cannot see beyond their own authoritarian agenda.  In another political climate it could be their freedom to speak out that will be stifled—and they will only have themselves to blame.