Finland argued that the convention is a broad statement of principles and not intended to cover specific medical situations such as end of life issues. Ironically, they argued the opposite when supporting the inclusion of “reproductive health services” that address beginning of life issues.[1]/a/sup/blockquote

It is indeed ironic. Unfortunately, no one in the main stream press will call them on it.

1. Ms. Susan Yoshihara PhD. “Pro-life Nations Under Severe Pressure to Allow ‘Reproductive Health’ in New Treaty” Friday Fax Volume 9 Number 35. The Fact Is 2006-08-24. http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=1579&authid=11/li/ol /div