[ad_1]
The president of the New Zealand Medical Association, who was forced to apologize and clarify the union’s position on the cannabis referendum, has been criticized for former Prime Minister Helen Clark, who said she previously “gave voters a false impression of what doctors think.”
Helen Clark – archive. Source: Getty
Clark, who has supported the ‘yes’ vote in the cannabis referendum, said it was “disturbing when organizations claim to speak on behalf of all their members when they clearly do not.”
NZMA had previously stated that it was against the legalization of cannabis, and was forced to send a clarification letter to its members on Thursday after RNZ reported that doctors had not been consulted on the stance of the referendum question. .
“The NZMA will have no position on the cannabis referendum itself,” read the letter, signed by the president, Dr. Kate Baddock, and the NZMA board.
“We are very sorry if anyone feels that the NZMA has not given them the opportunity to speak their minds,” he says.
Clark said Baddock “has left too late to withdraw his claims about what his membership supported, especially considering that early voting has been going on for more than a week.”
“The misinformation he released gave voters a false impression of what doctors think.”
In response to this, NZMA told 1 NEWS that the letter “was written for NZMA members and is now in the public domain – it was primarily intended to clarify matters for members after concerns were raised about consultations with our members.”
“Our position has not changed in the sense that we remain concerned about the harms of cannabis use, but we are not telling people how to vote.”
On its website under ‘New Zealand Medical Association and Cannabis 2020 Referendum’, it stated on May 6 that “NZMA does not condone the use of cannabis for recreational purposes and opposes legalization.”
“This position has not changed with the government’s announcement yesterday (Tuesday, May 7) of a referendum on the legalization of cannabis in 2020.”
The NZMA said today that the reason it did not address its members on the cannabis referendum issue, rather than use a stance created in 2012, was that it “strove to present health concerns as described in our position statement “.
“With the referendum on the enactment of the End of Life Election Act, our engagement with members came during the legislative process and therefore before the referendum was announced.”
On whether it was irresponsible to speak out as an ‘against’ voice repeatedly and only clarify its position less than two weeks before Election Day, NZMA said it is often “invited by the media to discuss any number of health concerns.”
“The letter to members addressed the concerns of some members and overall we have received positive feedback on this, however there are also some members who have raised concerns.
“After all, this is a complex issue and, as with the public, doctors and members will have different points of view.”
The letter begins by saying that due to “concerns expressed by some members and some misleading information in the media,” it would explain the difference between end-of-life referenda and the legalization and control of cannabis.
When asked what she meant by “misleading information in the media,” Dr. Baddock said it was “disappointing that key parts of our comment and position have been overlooked at times or not reported.”
“We have primarily looked at harms associated with cannabis, but we have recognized that problems related to cannabis use must be decriminalized and diverted from the courts and treated as health problems.”
The NZMA’s position on cannabis harm has been reported by 1 NEWS and Newshub, Stuff has reported its decriminalization stance, and the New Zealand Herald has reported its stance on diverting sanctions from the courts.
