next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
These responses were extremely telling. The Liberal response was like a slap in the face it was so reactionary. The PC response was quite good, but the NDP response was fantastic. They really know our issues, agree with us, and know how to help us in a fair way. The NDP is clearly the party that most deserves support. Please distribute this wherever it will be of help. The Liberal and PC responses are available as e-mail, IF they are requested by any of you. The NDP response is available as a fax, or as a an attachment in e-mail as a QuickLink II fax file which can only be opened if you have that fax program. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ***************************************************************************** For Immediate Release 19 March 1998 MEDIA RELEASE Environmental Illness Questionnaire Responses PROMISES TO BE KEPT (Halifax, NS) Those with Environmental Illness/Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (EI/MCS) represent a sizable and growing segment of the population desperately in need of improved health care. Since health care reforms have become the biggest issue in this provincial election, the Nova Scotia Coalition on Environmental Sensitivity sent a questionnaire to each of the three political parties. It is in commitment to the details that the strength of promises are to properly understood. The response has clearly shown a wide division in understanding of the issues and in true commitment to improvement. We expected all three political parties to pledge greatly improved health care and responsiveness for those with Environmental Illness/Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. But we were wrong! We expected the Liberals to promise to be willing to do much better in the future than they did in the past, but instead they consistantly held to current policy. The questions presented represent political problems created during this Liberal government. Their answers clearly indicate they will do little different in the future. The previous Liberal government started out with great promises of improved health care, but things were actually made much worse. Failure to make real improvement will prove costly to the economy, to individuals and business and to the health of our citizens. The Liberal policies seem destined to create a health deficit that will impoverish our future lives. The Conservative party was well informed and helpful in questions involving the Clinic and treatment issues and the Langley and Beresford Reports. They gave only one yes answer without qualifications. On home care, air quality, schools and pesticides, responses were generalized support or indicated the use of process or agencies that have not resolved these issues properly in the past. We need firm commitments and better public processes. Thus, these responses do not give us complete comfort. The Sable gas response particularly shows no understanding of the severity of the problem and offers not even an open and detailed examination of the issue. To give credit where it is due, we note that it was the previous Conservative government that established our Environmental Health Clinic that was of so much benefit. This Clinic was taken away by the Liberals and replaced by a much more limited research centre. The NDP response holds out the gratest promise. Consistently better understanding was shown of the severity of the problems of those with EI/MCS and of the immediacy of the need for tangible help. Processes for solutions in home care, indoor air pollution, schools, Clinic issues, and the reports showed real understanding of the subleties of the issues and how to work with all parties to achieve lasting, quality results. Even in the Sable gas issue, the promise of a thorough examination of the potential health effects is a reasonable approach. At least one NDP candidate has seen the impact of EI/MCS in his own family which glives us more confidence that an NDP government would actually prove the most caring and compassionate to those with, or at risk of, Environmental Illness/Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. We count these questionnaire responses as firm commitments we expect to be adhered to with no excuses. "These statements are intended to give our consituants a guide when they cast their votes on March 24. The Conservative Party gave us several very good responses, but also many generic answers to our questionnaire. The Liberal party provised to do just a little better than their current policies. The New Democratic Party acheived a mark of excellence based on their responses to our questionnaire." observed Dr. Jacobo Asuncion, Jr., MD, former professor, Dalhousie Medical School and now Co-chair of the Allergy and Environmental Health Association-Nova Scotia (AEHA-NS). The NS Coalition on Environmental Sensitivity strongly recommends that voters concerned with health care look to the details and to history in making choces. For more information contact: Dr. Jacobo Asuncion, Jr., MD, 477-7409. - 30 - The NS Coalition on Environmental Sensitivity is composed of organisations and individuals with a common interest in promoting proper treatment, education, prevention and research in the field of Environmental Illness/Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. The Coalition was drawn together by recognition of the profound threat of harm represented by the Langley Committee Report and the attendant political process.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects