Everyone please read...

Everyone please read...
http://www.robertlatimer.net/story/tracysillness.htm

When we put all rapists, murderers, and thugs (regardless of race) away with as much ferocity as the justice system has shown Latimer then I will again respect it.

Until then our justice system is a joke, and Latimer's story continually exposes it as so..

I heard on the news the other day, that Latimer was going to have his hearing regarding day parol.

That he would be denied it, did not even cross my mind. Foolish me.

Here is a man who took a life.

Yes, he took a life.

And he could not have come to that easily, watching what his daughter went through over all those years.

To think that he could be a danger to society in being released during the day, or that he did not show enough remorse to suit the panel, makes my heart sink for him, and his family.

I have sympathy for the pain the Latimers' felt, including Tracy - who never asked to be put to death. That Robert seems to still stubbornly believe that what he did was in his daughter's best interest seems reasonable grounds to deny him parole. I've a niece who in many ways is in as bad/worse health than Tracy (for all of her 10 years of life so far) - I know her parents find some solace that this unrepentant man is facing justice for his actions.

The discrepancy between how he has been treated and other criminals is a travesty, but one that will not be fixed by erasing his sentence. Rather it will be remedied when the others are properly brought to justice for their crimes.

We don't even allow our animals to suffer in that kind of pain. I cannot imagine watching your child suffer through this disease and surgeries. The years that this man sit in jail are nothing compared to the jail of h@ll that his little girl lived in. It shows his principals are still strong and his belief in what he did is still strong. The parole board will never break this man. I personally think it is wrong to keep him locked up as he would not be a threat to anyone else.

This is indeed a tragic situation. Torn between providing relief from pain and suffering and the sanctity of human life. In my opinion -- when all is said and done, we should protect life no matter how deplorable it may be. Who should choose -- even in a situation like this where a loving family member intends to provide relief? And I'm not saying the punishment fits the crime as in this situation.

frenchie says it best.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that this man killed a loved one out of a sense of compassion and is imprisoned, but hundreds of women do the same thing to their fetuses every day
without a thought.

RB -- I did read the article (http://www.robertlatimer.net/story/tracysillness.htm. ) -- thank you. Indeed tragic ! Many ethics issues to consider.

We have reports regarding a murderer who shot and killed a wonderful man in Ottawa. He was judged not able to understand his actions as he is a schizophrenic. He is back out and has recently been accused of attacking a border guard in the US. His voices tell him what to do. He is free amongst us. did he show remorse?
I guess the word is out--show remorse and you can get away with anything? Funny, I didn't see Chretien show remorse over adscam, yet he is free, well relatively free--we still have to pay his pension.
The treatment of Robert Latimer shows how injust our so-called 'Justice' system is. You have to play the game to get parole. Sick!

Plain and simple the parole board that denied him bail is wrong.
Latimer was denied bail solely for the reason that he us unrepentant about his actions.
The parole board has decided that Latimer does not deserve parole because he is not begging forgiveness. This is nothing but hubris on the part of this board and I'd suggest an element of spite and vindictiveness directed to someone who is not going to bow to their authority and does not recognize them as holding a moral high ground.

They are in short, jackasses of the first order.

Robert Latimer does not owe the members of the parole board anything.
It is plain that Latimer poses NO threat to society and is perfectly capable of returning to society as a peaceful and productive member.

Now I'd like to know how many career criminals, habitual sex offenders and violent sociopaths these same people have released from prison simply because they received the expected pleas of contrition or excuses of victimhood.

I don't have a problem with him being found guilty of a crime and sentenced accordingly. The problem I have is the hypocrisy in the system his case has exposed.

Whether or not you agree with his position, he has taken a principled stand and thus is not remorseful for what he's done. This is the basis for denying his parole; his lack of remorse. Then you have completely un-principled criminals who lie to the parole board, fake remorse, and get parole only to re-offend. And then the next time they're before the parole board, they lie again and get out. Let's face it, there's very little chance of Mr. Latimer re-offending.

I think Mr. Latimer should have been granted day parole.

I think it would have been reasonable to grant the man ( and his family ) parole. I admire him for the fact that he will not play their game. Would everyone please contact their MP and suggest we get some proper representation of the public on the parole board.

He could have acted contrite. He could have expressed remorse and regret. He could have gotten that parole. Instead, he told the truth and in so doing honored the selfless act of love that ended his daughters life and took away his freedom. If I am ever in a position similar to that of his daughter, I can only pray that I have someone who loves me enough to accept imprisonment rather than allow me to continue suffering.

As someone who at one time was in such bad shape that my best prognosis was assisted living in a group home, I'm glad that no one took the initiative to gas me to death in their pickup truck. There turns out to be a helluva a difference between what doctors say is possible for a patient and what the patient can actually accomplish.

Mr. Latimer murdered his daughter in cold blood, and I'm sorry that we had no death penalty to apply to him. Nothing less is acceptable in my opinion.

In my opinion Latimer should have never served a day in prison.
This judicial system in this country is so back assward that serial killer Karla Hamolka will serve less time for her part in butchering her sister than Latimer for ending the misery of his daughter.
The treatment of Latimer is a black mark on Canada.

If Latimer thought he what he did was right and based upon some sick principle, why did he try to hide the fact he murdered?

At any rate, he's a rapist and a murderer and deserves the death penalty. He's getting off lightly.

And ET, if you feel so much pain over this issue, perhaps, in the interests of compassion, you should be euthanized.

I believe that anyone who feels that keeping Tracy alive was the humane thing to do is deluded. How are you respecting the sanctity of life by allowing a child (infant in a lot of ways) to suffer? That's barbaric.

If Mr. Latimer simply wanted to be free from his obligations as a parent, he could have walked away from the family years ago. Instead, he's done what he feels was the compassionate choice, out of love for his daughter, and has paid a massive personal price for that.

Mr. Latimer deserves our support, and compassion. I cannot fathom how anyone with children could condemn him given the circumstances.

Latimer in jail meanwhile Sven Robinson, convicted thief and admitted participant in Sue Rodriquez mercy killing....... runs around a free man.

I guess we should be consistent and put some more farmers in jail for selling wheat.

Ol Hoss, you are beyond senility. Time for your trip to the glue factory.

There should never be dead squirrels in the world. They are cute and harmless! We should respect them and leave them alone:)

Those parole board Liberal appointees should take guidance from one of their role models, Stalin. Instead of mental torture they should just physically beat the prisoner until he signs a statement expressing the correct remorse they deem adequate.

First, what I am most shocked about is that he was convicted of _second_ instead of first degree murder. He obviously committed his crime with malice aforethought (it was 'planned and deliberate') and took steps to conceal his guilt after he had done so.

Second, and in this I will likely appear cold and unfeeling and probably offend a number of people in the process, I think the fact that he so loved his daughter and she was suffering &c &c are irrelevant when considering the facts of the case. The law in this country is clear: ___NO___ individual has the right to decide when to end the life of another _through homicide_. This is as true for him as it should have been for whomever helped Sue Rodriguez kill herself, though at least in her case she was an adult capable of articulating her wishes (though if the assistance was of a substantive nature, the fact that she requested it is also irrelevant -- no one can consent to be killed). This is black-letter law. Latimer took the life of another sentient being; what we think of the quality of that life is immaterial, as that is not our determination to make; he received the mandatory sentence of life; he deserves to do his 25 years.

Don't misunderstand me. Canadian justice is in many respects f----d. Because it is so, however, does not mean that we should be affording leeway to an admitted murderer.

How do his wife and other children feel about this, anyways? I've never seen the media report anything about their reaction to this.

Adune, your comments are spot on. The Latimer family has endured more pain than any of us will ever know.
They also have had to pay the ongoing price of those actions regardless of any rationalization. Ol hoss. you are an Asshole of the highest level. Your comments are idiotic. Latimer is a rapist? I hope you nor anybody you know, is ever put into a situation that this family has had to go through so publicly.

There is a poll over at the globe site.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Do you agree with the National Parole Board's decision to keep Robert Latimer in prison?

Please go vote no. Let them know that they are wrong to hold this caring compassionate and brave man away from his family.

Ol Hoss, you are beyond senility.

Watch yourself, old age and treachery will overcome youth and vigour every time.

And I cannot imagine how any parent can consider it humane to kill my child - I think these are the 'core beliefs' Kate identifies that unless we can resolve these, we will inevitably arrive at different conclusions. I absolutely agree about the hypocrisy, especially that of our elected officials, who seem to be above justice.

I am not happy about Latimer continuing to serve time (I don't take pleasure in his punishment), but I do think it's the right thing to do. It's not so much that he, specifically, poses a continued threat. It's that he sets an example for others who might be tempted to do the same kind of thing. Since he's the one who set the example, he's the one who needs to serve the time. I wish there was a good option here, but I think Latimer closed the door to picking the best of bad options when he took his daughter's life. What must she have been thinking while her father was doing this? There are many cognitively-aware people who cannot communicate what they are aware of (I've met several) through traditional means. There is a chance that Tracy fully knew that her father was killing her while it was taking place.

As a Bible-believing pastor, I filter pretty much everything through God's Word. As a father, I have great compassion for a dad who has seen his daughter suffer for years, something I have never had to do. However, the most important fact here is that Tracy was created in the image of God, as are we all. To take Tracy's life, no matter how well-intentioned, is to strike at the image of God in her. This is where the atheist misses the point, and the importance and value of every human life; we are not well-evolved protoplasm; we are God's masterpieces. If Robert Latimer recognized the true issue here and repented of it, I would say, let the man out; unfortunately, he does not, and is stubborn in his insistence he did the right thing.

Your comments are idiotic. Latimer is a rapist?

http://www.chninternational.com/chn1-3.htm

Geothermal--right on. Why was Robinson not treated the same way as Latimer? Is it who you are that really determines our fate at the hands of the Injustice System? You get the justice you can afford? Sue was as much, if not more, disabled than Tracey--was she not worthy of the same 'protection' from the system?

*
"sean says... I'm glad that no one took the initiative to gas me to death
in their pickup truck. I'm sorry that we had no death penalty to apply
to him. Nothing less is acceptable in my opinion."

yeah... you're all about compassion and respect for life...
that sure comes through loud and clear.

*

I share Kate's view.

My blood boils when I think about this case. It seems our justice system always makes the wrong judgements.

They are far too easy on the real criminals, and yet show an incredible inability to understand the more complex cases such as this one.

In general I have always viewed the legal profession as somewhat over-hyped. Lawyers, judges etc. would like the population to believe that they are supremely clever and that the law is too sophisticated for mere mortals to understand the decisions that are made.

When in fact, if you pull back the curtain, you discover it's not nearly as magnificent as they want people to think.

I know a lawyer in town who regularly gets hardened criminals off the hook, on parole, light sentences etc, and he's proud of it (and has made a fortune in the process).

Yet Latimer still sits in jail....

Hopefully one day things will improve.

...sorry if this has already been said, and I'll try to find a link and post it later when I have a break, but it should be known that Robert did not have any financial motivations for his actions... Tracy for a while was in a care facility that Robert easily afforded... this might sound like a strange point, but I'm making it because some people assume he killed her for reasons other than his concern for her life/suffering, and after writing a research paper on the case as an undergraduate student I didn't believe that one bit.

...which still doesn't mean people should be allowed to kill their children of course, but to my mind that's the heart of the issue... various sites/people have tried to slander Robert and paint him as selfish/evil, instead of misguided... if I can find that paper maybe I'll post it on blogspot or something...
Later that is.

Latimer was in an impossible situation. Human compassion clearly begged for a release from suffering for his daughter.

Doctors are sworn to preserving life.

The state tolerates no person assuming the authority to take a life.

The state will not release Latimer who insists he did the correct and humane thing.

The state may release Latimer if he admits he is evil and shows great remorse and swears on a stack of bibles he would never do the same thing again given the same situation.

Latimer*s honesty has it*s price. = TG

While I can feel compassion for Latimer, having lived through 8 surgeries in the first year with my oldest, there was an end in sight for my child along with a chance for a pain free life, unlike Tracy's situation. I certainly don't condone what he did, but on the other hand his motives were based on love for his daughter. To those who say he was selfish, I ask you why did he not turn his daughter over to the "state" at birth and walk away from any involvement? I know others who have institionalized their children for far less severe disabilities. Instead this family undertook the care and raising of their daughter because they loved her. They were the ones sitting with her through many a night. They knew her condition better than the social worker popping by for the bi-monthly 15 minute visit. In addition, he has not gotten off with a slap on the wrist. He's paid a higher price than most for this crime before he ever went behind bars. It's time to move on and let him return to society.

Pastor,

No offence but your logic is circular. It isn't that the athiest "misses the point" of man being made in God's image but that if they beleived that then they wouldn't be athiests...

If you don't believe in God then you don't believe that man was created (by God) in God's image.

A few other points:

Sean, your situation is different than Latimer's. I can understand that those who are disabled or gravely injured would fear the extention of Euthanasia to Canada. There are legitimate concerns. But in voicing society's rejection of Euthanasia, he has been punished more than some serial killers and every single pedophile. When serial child rapists get a few months and this guy gets life the system is an ass.

The system can convict Latimer but still show compassion for him. When the worst vermin in society are treated with more kindness and understanding than latimer you have a society that has lost its way.

Second, for the rest of you, walk a mile in Latimer's shoes. Pious rantings are easy. Living with what that family has gone through is not.

Thirdly, if ever I'm in the same situation as Tracy is, pull the plug. You may feel the same way at some point but not be in the situation to voice it. At that point you will hope for someone to show the kind of mercy anyone with compassion would show their Golden Retreiver. And don't give me any of that "life is precious" horsesh*t if you haven't been there yet. Everyone's the bravest guy on earth until you face the storm.

If Robert Latimer is in jail for killing his daughter, why isn't Svend Robinson in jail for killing Sue Rodriguez?

The latimer case was a political dog and pony show and justice got frigged in the process...the charges were inappropriate, the crown didn't prove mens rea yet there was no mistrile or reduced to manslaughter....now the parole denial as if the guy is a dangerous killer....pfffft..all in all a display that the justice system in Canada is so corrupted with partisan politics that any hope for reform is dim.

Karla Homolka,

drugged her own sister (with drugs she had stolen) to rape her for "fun",
Homolka and her boyfriend had too much "fun" so her sister died,
Homolka drugged, raped and killed her own sister for sex, for "fun"

Karla Homolka is a monster.

Compared to her Latimer is an angel.

Karla Homolka is a monster but she is out of jail.

Those who let that monster get out of jail are dangerously stupid and definitely dangerously unqualified to make such important decisions.

Those who are keeping Latimer in jail are just a little less stupid.

In any event--Latimer does not pose a threat to public safety. He is nonetheless a murderer in the eyes of the law. That was his daughter in the truck, not "old blue" that would no longer bark when a stranger approached the fuel tank, so we took him out to the rock pile and shot him!
My personal opinion about Robert Latimer is that there wasn't a whole lot of logic behind his actions. Had he had two bits worth of common sense, he would have known that the conseqences to killing someone was and is life imprisonment.
Children are not "chattle," thus their lives are not ours to take.

While it is doubtless true that Mr. Latimer would be very unlikely to re-offend in the same manner as his original crime, it cannot be said that he does not represent a threat to society if you agree, as many do, that what he did was wrong. According to the parole board, his next stop on being freed was to move to Ottawa and engage in lobbying for the legalization of euthanasia.

The best scenario here would be for him to recognize the error of his ways and to then be reunited with his family - but that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps, after some competant counselling which he appears to have refused so far, it will.

The Latimer case was sabotaged by the activists for the handicapped.

Tracy's handicap (cerebral palsy) had nothing to do with the case. Yes, she had the most severe form of cerebral palsy, rendering her with, probably, the cognitive ability of a four month old. This is speculative because she could not speak. But that's not the point.

The reality is that her physical condition was rapidly degenerating, beyond the capacity of our current medical system to deal with it. Her bones were literally dissolving and she was in excruciating pain. An operation to 'replace' a bone in her leg with a metal rod wouldn't have stopped the degeneration and would have meant a long period of painful convalescence. Again, even this convalescence wasn't the key problem.

The problem was that her pain had reached a state of continuous agony; the degenerating state of her body wasn't going to stop. There were no painkillers available stronger than Tylenol that could be given to her because she was subject to seizures (about 6 a day) and fluid buildup in her longs. Painkillers interfere with the anti convulsant drugs and the drugs against fluid buildup.
Yes, if you have her stronger painkillers, she'd choke on her long fluids as she had multiple seizures.

So- what does a parent do? The Court suggested that the Latimers could institutionalize her. Ahh, send her away so you don't see her agony. The Latimers refused.

The Court suggested stronger painkillers, denying the repeated testimony of her doctor that this was impossible. Stronger painkillers would kill her.

So, he killed her, in a painless way (carbon monoxide poisoning).

What parent,a genuinely caring parent, can stand by and watch their child in agony? Latimer did the right thing.

How can we as a society permit someone to live in agony? We rant and rail against torture, but, we permit it in Tracy's case.

In hospitals, terminally ill patients are drugged with morphine; if it interferes with their other medications, and they die, either from the morphine, the other medications and their terminal illness - we say nothing.

In Tracy's case, IF they had given her stronger medication to deal with her pain, she would have died anyway, by choking, a far more painful death than the one Latimer gave her.

Remember, this had nothing to do with her being handicapped; the Latimer's kept and loved her for 12 years and refused to institutionalize her. It had nothing to do with mild or even occasional pain, such as arthritic and etc. It had to do with the development of an extreme irreversible degeneration of her physical body, a state that was keeping her in continuous agonizing pain.

We don't let animals suffer. How can we allow a human being to suffer, while we smugly speak, as we watch them, of the 'sanctity of life'.

Latimer refuses to demean himself in front of the sanctimonious members of the parole board. He won't play their game. The most unrepentant criminals amongst us play the game, they sigh and declare they are sorry, they are repentant - and out they go. What do they do then? Back to robberies, homicides, break and enter, beating up people.....We see this 'violation of parole', and 'murder while out on parole' all the time. Thanks, Parole Board members. You really look after us. You just want someone to grovel in front of you, pretend to be sorry - and you release them. It's all about your feelings of authority, Parole Board members. Not about truth.

Children are not "chattle," thus their lives are not ours to take.

That statement goes to the heart of the matter. If it were otherwise slavery would be legal. Murder is theft of someone's life, and there can be no restitution. That's the reason for the death penalty, send the murderer to the Judge and to face the victim. That will happen regardless.

woof - IF Latimer's 'next step' was to lobby for the legalization of euthanasia, this is an expression of his fundamental right, the freedom to have and to express, his beliefs.

Some people agree with the legalization of euthanasia. You obviously don't. But, some people might declare YOU a 'threat to society'. Remember, these are two different opinions, people have the right to express these two differences, argue and debate them - without someone like you suggesting that such is a 'danger to society'.

Right, johnny jesus, and the consequences of not killing her, was to stand by and watch her writhe in agony. Can you actually advocate doing such a thing? Standing by and watching someone in agony, and sanctimoniously say to yourself, who is not in that agony, "oh, life is so precious'.

warwick - excellent post.

Mr. Latimer took the life of a vulnerable individual who had no say in the mater. His daughter's life was taken without her consent. Regardless of his what intentions were, that is against the law.

"yeah... you're all about compassion and respect for life... that sure comes through loud and clear."

I respect those who respect the lives of others. Those who would take another's life should be forced to forfeit their own. I'm for the death penalty only when there's unequivocal evidence of guilt. In all other cases, life without parole.

Do you REALLY want to see a legal precedent set that decides the lives of some citizens are worth less than the lives of other citizens? Run that around your noodle a few times -- I guarantee you won't like the answer (not if you're in possession of a working noodle, at least).

I watched the news story on Global last night regarding the Day parole for Robert Latimer.

MY opinion is that this was the most compassionalte act he could have done for his daughter. We should all hope we are never put in this situation. I know if I was, I'd have a hard time with the legalities of the issue, right or wrong.

I think the justice system has failed Robert Latimer. If we are to be fairly judged on a case by case basis, then compassion would have eventually given Latimer some form of freedom, whatever that may mean to him.

I also must state that I respect him for sticking to his guns regarding the parole board - to think he should have to compromise his integrity like so many others do, without a second thought, for his freedom.

That which is done out of love, lies beyond good and evil,

D

ol hoss you being an outsider, what do you think of the human race now that you've met us. pete

TG, ET, you echo my thoughts completely.

Pastor, I appreciate the fact that you hold strong moral views on protecting life, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. I would challenge you that the bible doesn't endorse a view where every human life is in the image of God, and sacred. If you're honest about reading scripture, and not just cherry picking the happy verses, there's plenty in the bible to suggest that God's okay with a little killing. (Smashing the heads of Babylonian babies anyone?) As one who believes in a loving heavenly father, I'm happy that Tracy is free from her broken earthly body, and in the presence of her creator. Christians that promote the belief that it's God's will for children to suffer are probably a big reason a lot of thinking individuals reject the church.

In terms of moral outrage at the taking of a human life, if you're all worked up about Tracy, then you should also be worked up about children being killed the world over, of disease, starvation, and war, and even more thorny issues like the sanctity of the life of the criminal shot breaking into a home, or the murderer & rapist on death row, etc.

Yes, Mr. Latimer must be punished for what he did. He ignored the law, and took things into his own hands, and civilly, the law must be upheld. However, his punishment is disproportionate to the crime he committed. Our medical system doesn't have a legally sanctioned solution to the problem his family faced, apart from letting Tracy suffer. That's a failing of the law, and Mr. Latimer had to break the law to do what he saw (and many others see) as being the best thing for Tracy. He was just a man, no more saintly or evil than any other doing what he felt was the only thing he could for his daughter. He is not the correct target for our criminal justice system.

In this politically corrupted justice system, I figure Latimer is serving the time Svend Robinson escaped via political connections.

...the Jurocrats had to hang someone to placate the pressure/backlash the government was getting from people afraid of state sanctioned euthanasia that the Robinson had caused by his Kavorkian death cult acts and private member's bills....so essentially they had the courts hang Latimer for Robinson's crime and the fears he had stirred in the general public.

As some other posters have said, Latimer was not making a political statement or advocating state sanctioned euthanasia but he was rail roaded in court as if he had.

Now they want to keep him locked away so he is not a constant reminder to the public how incredibly corrupted by politics our justice system really is.

Right, adune, our medical system doesn't have a legally sanctioned method to deal with Tracy's problem - the severe, irreversible degeneration of her physical body, accompanied by extreme pain.

As I said, in hospitals, they'll give high doses of morphine to terminally ill patients in agony. The fact that it 'interferes' with other medications is irrelevant. The patient dies, without agony, from a combination of the high doses, the illness.

In Tracy's case, there was no solution. They couldn't stop the physical degeneration; they couldn't stop the pain. What does a parent do?

The insistence of some, that Tracy had 'no say' in the matter is ridiculous. She couldn't speak. Much less conceptually understand what was happening to her body. Are you saying that people unable to comprehend language must be left to suffer because they can't speak out?

I cannot see how any individual, who loves another person, can stand by and allow them to suffer such agony. In the name of 'life'? That's arrogance on our part.

As for the 'slippery slope', it's a fallacious argument. It doesn't apply here. The situation was not about her being 'suitable to live', but about a specific situation of physical degeneration accompanied by extreme pain, that our medical technology was unable to deal with.

Our medical system couldn't deal with the situation, and our legal system totally failed both Tracy and Robert Latimer.

http://www.chninternational.com/latimer_lethal.htm

Latimer's lethal legacy

Excerpts;

To connect Canada's rising filicide rate with Latimer, Prof. Sobsey uses social learning theory, which posits that when aggression is modelled, its influence will be heightened if the model's behaviour is endorsed by the public. In his words, "The widespread social perception that 'altruistic homicides' like the killing of Tracy Latimer are the acts of heroic and loving parents who deserve praise... should be expected to encourage more parents to kill their children." Prof. Sobsey predicted that Latimer's favourable publicity would lead to:

One or more copycat homicides.

An increase in children killed by their parents relative to the national homicide rate.

An increase in children killed by fathers and stepfathers relative to the number killed by mothers and stepmothers.

"According to our research," says Prof. Sobsey, "1997 featured the greatest number of articles supportive of Latimer. That's also the year when the largest number of filicides took place in Canada." By way of contrast, he points out that in the U.S., where the Latimer story has received little publicity, the filicide rate has tracked the overall homicide rate, which, like Canada's, fell steadily during the 1990s.

I beleive that Robert Latimer deserved to be jailed. Having a sister that has severe cerebral palsy and that looks remarkably like Tracy Latimer makes the case very personal.
However, I think that the "point" of jailing him (deterring others plus expressing society's disapproval of killing) has been accomplished. Eligibility for parole should be based on an assesment of the risk to society, not whether the potential parolee has "feelings" that are congruent with how members of a parole board think he should feel. So, at the time of his trial I was on the "jail Robert Latimer" side, but I am now on the "free Robert Latimer" side, with my basic beliefs not having changed one bit.

No time to read all comments, but I also agree with frenchie. I am opposed to euthanasia. Latimer did commit an intentional murder, but do I sleep better knowing he has to spend more time in jail? No. Hard to see him as a threat to society.
I'm actually a bit more sleepless these days because I have loved ones in a city that has other murderers and rapists out on parole, with an over worked, underappreciated police force. Guess they play the game better than Latimer.

ol hoss...I wonder if that 'increased rate' could also be connected to the rate of killing children before birth?

ol hoss - I suggest a basic course in logic and statistics. The first rule to be memorized and repeated continuously is:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Because there were lots of 'filicides' around the time of Latimer does NOT, repeat NOT, mean that the Latimer case CAUSED these other deaths.

There were/are lots of abortions at the same time.

And, there were tons of ice cream sold at the same time.

Again, Lesson One: correlation has nothing to do with causation.

jethro- the situation with Tracy was not about her cerebral palsy but about the degeneration of her bones and muscle mass, putting her in a state of continuous severe pain that wasn't amenable to medical treatment.

For me this story has little to do with euthanasia or ethical quandries, unlike when he was first convicted. It is true that the ethical dilemma is important at this point in deciding whether or not the 'punishment fits the crime'.

However, from what I've read in the comments so far, all of the (for lack of better terms) pro-Latimers and a portion of the anti-Latimers feel that he should be released, albeit for different reasons.

You also can lump me in with those who think he should be released. I still have no idea if what he did was right or not, but it does not scare me to think of him as a free man. Even if I were to assume that what he did was, in fact, wrong, I would come to that same conclusion, and almost certainly would believe that his punishment no longer fits his crime.

Anyway, it seems to me that the reasons the parole board gave for denying him day parole are terrible.

Murder is murder. Latimer should swing, but then so should all the ones who end human lives when there still in the womb.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071206/murder_ruling_071206/20071206?hub=Canada

And some murderers are better than others.
The SCC says so!

ET your discussions are usually quite respectable and intelligent.
Wow! I cannot believe that you just made a comparison between the sale of ice cream and abortions/murder.
Being amoral is different than immoral.

I ran for the Reform party and someone called in because of him, she said she was in a wheel chair and was worried that if Latimer got off someone might kill them and come up with stories like they were not happy etc.

Hard to say she was wrong and I did agree with her.

But we do not give most murderers this much time for killing someone. Which is sad because we had a far lower murder rate in 1962 when we last used the death penalty compared to today.

I had a brother who was disabled should my parents have just killed him?

Saying what Latimer did was not a crime is like telling anyone who is disabled that they can be lined up and pushed off a cliff. That's how the woman who called me took it.

I couldn't say she was wrong.

In a rare circumstance, I completely agree with ET.

I also feel that the parole board did an injustice for several reasons, but in my opinion, the easiest one to see is that there is no chance of his re-offending.

John

dinasaur - again, how many times must one repeat this fact? The situation with Tracy had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with her being disabled!!! The activists for the handicapped took over the trial and turned it into a giant guilt trip for the disabled. It had nothing to do with that.

The situation was answering one question. How does one deal with a person whose physical body has moved into a rapidly degenerating state, irreversible, not amenable to medical solution - and a state that was causing extreme agonizing pain to the person?

Remember, the pain wasn't amenable to painkillers.

So- what do you do? Can you actually stand by and watch someone in agony?

The callers who are fearful that someone is going to push their wheelchair over a cliff are seeking attention, are deluded, are.....
It had nothing to do with disability.

It had to do with a situation which almost all 'deniers' ignore. Pain. No-one wants to talk about or deal with the very real situation where someone is in a no-solution medical situation that involves severe pain. No-one will discuss that. Instead, we get the diversions to 'handicapped' and 'sanctity of life'.

How about dealing with reality?

Mr. Latimer was in a tragic situation.

But then I could have pulled the plug on my mother as well, who suffered through a four slide in deteriorating health, an incurable neurodegnerative disease known as striato-nigral degeneration.

She too was in a great deal of pain, including phantom pain, for which her neurontin dose was maxed out.

Hey maybe I should have got my inheritance sooner!!

The germans had a plan for those 'not worthy of living' known as the "Aktion T4" (Tiergartenstrasse 4). Dr. Brandt and others involved in the program were generally condemned for their 'state sanctioned killing'.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/defense/evans/530cxii

Thus if it is wrong for the state, it is wrong for the individual, period. It is not the job of the state or individual to play God.

God will come and get you all in good time. While pain, suffering and tragedy may be highly undesirable it is not an excuse.

For those who are want to play God, who decides who is worthy of euthanasia and under what circumstances.

As has often been observed, hard cases make bad law. To wit we now have a nation that allows unrestricted abortion for any whim. But of course this was originally sold as a bill of goods "only in the most extreme cases."

My greater family has been there, done that. You are welcome to it, but I won't be following down the euthanasia road.

Find me any patient who is dying and "enjoys" the process. Pain and suffering is not an excuse to help others off into the hereafter.

But of course the bean counters will come back and say: "Hey look how much we can save on medical expenditures with a small inexpensive lethal injection, we can fudge the paperwork." cf The Netherlands where this is already common.

Just think I could have saved $6000.00 a month by helping my mother off into the hereafter.

I wonder if greed is ever a motivator when it comes to valuing human life?

Cheers

The following posters have very eloquently summed up the case the way I see it:

"The system can convict Latimer but still show compassion for him. When the worst vermin in society are treated with more kindness and understanding than latimer you have a society that has lost its way."
Posted by: Warwick at December 6, 2007 12:29 PM

"Latimer refuses to demean himself in front of the sanctimonious members of the parole board. He won't play their game. The most unrepentant criminals amongst us play the game, they sigh and declare they are sorry, they are repentant - and out they go. What do they do then? Back to robberies, homicides, break and enter, beating up people.....We see this 'violation of parole', and 'murder while out on parole' all the time. Thanks, Parole Board members. You really look after us. You just want someone to grovel in front of you, pretend to be sorry - and you release them. It's all about your feelings of authority, Parole Board members. Not about truth."
Posted by: ET at December 6, 2007 1:02 PM

"However, I think that the "point" of jailing him (deterring others plus expressing society's disapproval of killing) has been accomplished. Eligibility for parole should be based on an assesment of the risk to society, not whether the potential parolee has "feelings" that are congruent with how members of a parole board think he should feel. So, at the time of his trial I was on the "jail Robert Latimer" side, but I am now on the "free Robert Latimer" side, with my basic beliefs not having changed one bit."
Posted by: Jethro at December 6, 2007 1:46 PM

ol hoss - I suggest a basic course in logic and statistics. The first rule to be memorized and repeated continuously is:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Because there were lots of 'filicides' around the time of Latimer does NOT, repeat NOT, mean that the Latimer case CAUSED these other deaths.

Yeah, that's why removing the penalties for robbery and murder wouldn't result in more robberies and murders.

Lord preserve the children from wacky perfessers.

Mr. Latimer's problem is the same as the convicted innocent like Marshall and Milgard. The parole board expects it's collective arse kissed. If you don't suck up you "don't understand the true meanings of your actions."

The parole board fails that interpetion by the mistakes they make continually.

If the jury knew they had the option of jury nullification he probably wouldn't be there. They wanted one year.

In a rare circumstance, I completely agree with ET.

It's time to become nervous when leftists agree with you.

ol hoss. I really do recommend a basic course in logic for you.

First, correlation doesn't equal causation. Got that? That means that a hike in statistics in parental killings of children can't be connected to the Latimer case. After all, you'd have to show that any and all cases that were heavily publicized were correlated with spikes in similar situations.

So, how many 'multiple killings of women' were there after the Montreal incident?
How many Bernardo-Homulka style rape-murders were there?
How many mothers starving their infants to death?
And so on.
It can't be done.

Then, your example of robberies and murders isn't completely different from the Latimer case. Your basic logical fallacy here, is comparing two situations that can't be compared.

An economic lifestyle, based around robberies, is a deliberate economic choice. The society has to make this economic choice increasingly risky, so that fewer people will make that choice. That's the reason for stricter jail sentences.

At the moment, choosing such a lifestyle is low risk. You might but not always, get caught. If you are caught, it's considered a 'price' of that particular lifestyle choice. It's actually a minor price. You are put up, room and board, in jail for a few months. You show great remorse, you manipulate the idiots on the parole board. And wham - you're out on the street. And back to work. Robbing. It's highly lucrative. No taxes as well.

Murder? That comes by chance. Or, as a result of gang warfare. Same thing. Many times, you don't get caught. And your gang buddies protect you; no-one talks. If you are caught, you plead being a 'stand-by watcher'; you might get a year or two. You do The Deal with the Idiot Parole Board. And - you're back on the street. Back to work in the gang.

Then, your example of robberies and murders isn't completely different from the Latimer case.

Murder isn't the same as murder? Is that perfesser logic?

I sympathize with Mr. Latimer and feel he should never have been jailed, much less denied day parole, but I believe he acted improperly and yes, illegally. The failure in this tragic situation may well be with the medical professionals involved.

My mother died of cancer in 1958 after many years of suffering through surgery, radiation, chemo and various experimental drug treatments- doctors suggested yet another experiment to possibly keep her alive for a few more months - my father felt she had suffered enough and said no more - she died shortly after.

My father-in-law died in 1992 ten years after a massive stroke - comatose in hospital - unable to swallow - doctors suggested inserting a feeding tube - family said no - he passed in a few days.

My mother-in-law will be 101 next month - we placed her in a local nursing home last Sept as her care became more than we could handle - we truly hoped she would quietly pass one night - she has great difficult swallowing so she is not eating or drinking to any extent - the family has signed a DNR order -no feeding tube will be used.

Do you see my point??

hans rupprecht - you know perfectly well that it is not about money and costs of care. It is about standing by and watching someone else suffer.

You brought up the holocaust. How many people stood by and watched the 'undesirables' carted off to the camps?

Nor can watching someone suffer be justified by passing the buck to god, and declaring that 'it's his will'.

That's three irrelevant arguments. My only argument is, what right do we have, we who are not suffering, to stand by and allow the suffering of others?

Ever heard of cases or murder/suicide, where one spouse, knowing that the wife/husband is dying in severe pain, will kill the spouse and then, themselves? That's very common. It's a similar situation. The individual cannot stand by and watch a loved one suffer - and so, kills them both. Is that preferable to what Latimer did?

Knowing the circumstances of the child, what percentage of fathers would end life to sve the everlasting pain IF THEY HAD THE COURAGE/ I suggest the majority of men would then do the same as Latimer. If so, we should show compassion and let Latimer have parole. It is only mean, petty vindictivness that keeps him there. And the fact he won't grovel.

If I had to choose between eternity in a cage in hell with Latimer or in an apartment in heaven with vicious and vindictive "ol' horse", I'd choose hell in a heartbeat.

The thing is we've lost sight of the purpose in suffering. It is unimportant. We do nothing to stop something so meaningless & trivial when it hits others far away, yet we're quick to snuff it out when it's happening in our own home because there's no value in it so stopping it takes priority even over life itself.

That's the core value on the table: Is there purpose in suffering?

Hans, my sympathies for your loss, but I would submit that it's not "playing God" to decline extraordinary medical treatment.

Is the goal of health care to simply prolong life as long as possible, or is it to provide the best quality of life possible?

Wanting to "pull the plug" and let someone pass on doesn't mean there's a greed motivation, and the way you've posted, you're treating it as loving vs greedy. I really don't think the issue is ever that black & white--good & evil.

ol hoss, I'm sure you know that I meant that 'your example of robberies and murders IS completely different from the Latimer case".

Not ISN'T. But 'IS'. My apologies if you misunderstood my typing error.

Speaking of typing or spelling errors, the correct spelling is 'professor', not 'perfesser'. You may pronounce it that way, but, it isn't spelled the way you say it!

The thing is, the Latimer family cared for Tracy, with care and love, for 12 years. It was when her condition deteriorated to such an extent that medical treatments were no longer going to help, and, her pain was increasing, that Mr. Latimer acted.

They could have increased the painkillers, and watched her die a dreadful death, by 'drowning' in her own lung fluids as a result of this medication. This would have been entirely legal! Instead, Latimer chose not to allow her to die in such an agony, and chose a painless method. What is our reaction? We fling him in jail, while parents who choose the 'drowning in lungfluids death' are OK.

Our justice system has failed Latimer. And the parole boards, rather like our Human Rights Commissions, operate outside of accountability. These parole boards release criminals who play the game, to continue to rob and murder us, and won't release Latimer, because he won't bow to them.

Remember, the pain wasn't amenable to painkillers.

ET - I don't understand all of the medical particulars in this case, but, have to weigh in that I think the pain issue is murky. Assessing and treating pain has advanced a lot with the advent of hospice care and pain specialists. Epileptics do get pain meds as needed. I just want to correct any misconception that it is contra-indicated or entirely incompatible.

Granted that assessing and effectively treating pain in someone as profoundly retarded as this child would be difficult, it still falls on medical professionals to assess that and provide a viable treatment plan. Not knowing what resources this dad had/didn't have/ignored is a big missing piece for me in judging his actions.

So, I'm trying to figure out if there was a resources/systems failure for Mr. Latimer.

Where's DrD when we need him to weigh in on that?

ET:

Your argument is simply:

If a person is in pain and suffering, this is an excuse to end their life.

My mother had a do not resuscitate order on her file, as she was already terminal. Notwithstanding, the emergency crew did their duty when her heart finally atrophied as well.

In spite of the aggressive decline in her physical ability, she was as sharp as a tack mentally. She managed to enjoy life to the end despite her extreme difficulties, and managed to spend one last Easter dinner meal with us, with the grand children taking turns feeding her. 3 days later she was gone.

We finally pulled her off the respirator as there was nothing left to keep her body going on its own.

That is not euthanasia, but merely letting nature take its course. One doesn't need to go to 'medical heroics' to preserve a life that is clearly failing in any case.

In contrast, Mr.Latimer decided not to let nature take its course, but rather decided to hasten it.
This is where he 'crossed the line'. Mr. Latimer's chosen method of pain killer was the same as the National Socialist's used to dispose of life namely carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle; before they got around to more 'efficient methods'.

He may just as well have used sodium or potassium cyanide, which would have been quicker. Losing consciousness in about 10 seconds, followed by cardiac arrest. I'm sure the Hemlock Society would have the most helpful information.

Alternately, an overdose of insulin would be a viable method to achieve the same result of lack of consciouness, coma and death.

It is quite one thing to cease active medical intervention on behalf of a dying patient, quite another to actively procure the death of the patient. The former is letting "nature/God" take its course, the latter requires an external ACT OF THE WILL.

It is the external ACT OF THE WILL that brings the Criminal Law into play.

The act of "hastening death" is where society has usually run off the rails, and history bears this out.

If one can terminate human life at the beginning and towards its end why not the middle of life, if pain and suffering is the only criterion?

Well that old nasty external ACT OF THE WILL makes it what the criminal law usually calls murder.

Sometimes, the law can be an ass, but it all we have right now. And Lord knows the system isn't anywhere near perfect but the frikkin' parole board denying Mr Latimer parole is nothing more than vengeful ignorance. I'm sure just about all here can point out a case where a repeat offender or someone who the shrinks almost guarantee will offend again are set free. Mr Latimer isn't likely to go around gassing handicapped people in Saskatchewan if he gets parole.

This crime was wrong for all the right reasons but he has done his time so lets get on.

Having nothing constructive to add won't stop me from adding something.

I am grateful for never having been in Mr. Latimer's shoes of having a disabled child. What he did was totally wrong, but I would hope I would have the courage to do what was necessary.

I also hope that if what was necessary was murder I wouldn't afterwards try and convince the system that I was right and they were wrong. Systems don't like that and they have most of the guns and all the prisons.

If you make hard decisions either suck it up and take your punishment like a man or throw yourself on their mercy and play their games. Don't look gobsmacked that they don't see it your way. How could the system condone snuffing handicapped kids?

When my father then few years later my father-in- law were dying from cancer they were in such agony it was almost unbearable to watch.
I quickly discovered the commonly used "solution" was to give morphine until the patient "felt no pain".
Both doctors and families with a semblance of inteligence knows that the doses being administered are lethal.
Living and or Dying with dignity is often missed prinicpal from those "caring" people who think death is some sort of failure and to be avoided at all costs.
Compassion often means letting go so our loved ones can be released from deep suffering.
In the Latimer case I believe a caring father saw unbearable pain and decide to administer a lethal dose of "morphine".

This is a saying, never judge a man unless you walk a mile in his shoes.

I do not know the details of his daughter's condition. One of my twin daughters is severely disabled, likely to never progress beyond the mental age of an infant, and, at just over a year old, we can already see her having sever physical discomfort/pain. Her spine is very cured and muscle problems are already dislocating one of her hips.

I do not even want to imagine what things will be like when she is twelve, if she lives that long.

Although I cannot imagine doing what he did I hesitate to judge him.

When you want to help someone, you don't destroy them.

To help someone means to help them fulfill their potential.

If you destroy their potential, that's not help.

Tracy Latimer was a defenseless victim. She had an inalienable right to life. She had a Charter right to life, and a Charter right to security of the person.

We cannot allow individuals to take it upon themselves to kill others, for whatever reason. It's false compassion. Killing only alleviates pain insofar as it destroys another human being. Is that the solution we want to promote in society: that destroying people is the solution?

Hans - well summarized.

ET - sympathy is clouding your judgment.

I have hesitated to comment on this, as most people make visceral judgments in such matters.

Latimer broke a law. He was charged, found guilty, and sentenced. The legal facts are not in dispute. What some here object to is that the state refuses to (a) show mercy, and (b) treat other guilty persons with equal “fairness”.

Think, people!

Individuals (are to) show love, mercy and compassion. The function of the state is to establish the rule of law and national security. It should avoid, strenuously, any temptations to make bad laws on the basis of hard cases. The end result is always worse.

You want to show mercy? Then find a way to avoid having this happen again. May I suggest donations to palliative care programs? Please?

Where Latimer falls on the tragic hero/villain scale is not the question.

Leftists always prefer the easy way out. It's easy to die, harder to live.

Look, Hoss, whether or not you agree with ET,
it remains the case the she is about as far from a
"leftist" as you will find. I'd advise you to stop
making a fool of yourself, though of course that
is your own business.

Interesting comments from all of you. I would heartily suggest all of you go to the Supreme Court of Canada website and bring up the case Regina vs. Latimer. Read the judgement and understand why he was convicted of his crime. A little education goes a long way.

Hans, respectfully, a child that has a severe degenerative condition with muscular degeneration, the inability to swallow, constant seizures, surviving only because of anti-seizure meds and surgery after surgery trying to deal with bone & muscle degeneration is not "nature taking it's course".

I'm not arguing against medical care for people. The purpose of medical care is to PREVENT nature from taking it's course.

My point is that treating the natural course of things as the "right" way is highly illogical.

For those who compare this to animals. There is a difference. A beloved pet would not have been left alone to die. You might take your pet to the vet to be put asleep - but, no pet owner ever left the animal to die alone.

Bob
Sit down and be quiet and do your time.

Wotcha, Vitruvius...

Be kind to ol hoss. He really meant "big-government elitist"

Eh, perfesser?

;-)

From R. v Latimer

"Held: The appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed.

The defence of necessity is narrow and of limited application in criminal law. The accused must establish the existence of the three elements of the defence. First, there is the requirement of imminent peril or danger. Second, the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action he or she undertook. Third, there must be proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided. Here, the trial judge was correct to remove the defence from the jury since there was no air of reality to any of the three requirements for necessity. The accused did not himself face any peril, and T’s ongoing pain did not constitute an emergency in this case. T’s proposed surgery did not pose an imminent threat to her life, nor did her medical condition. It was not reasonable for the accused to form the belief that further surgery amounted to imminent peril, particularly when better pain management was available. Moreover, the accused had at least one reasonable legal alternative to killing his daughter: he could have struggled on, with what was unquestionably a difficult situation, by helping T to live and by minimizing her pain as much as possible or by permitting an institution to do so. Leaving open the question of whether the proportionality requirement could be met in a homicide situation, the harm inflicted in this case was immeasurably more serious than the pain resulting from T’s operation which the accused sought to avoid. Killing a person — in order to relieve the suffering produced by a medically manageable physical or mental condition — is not a proportionate response to the harm represented by the non‑life‑threatening suffering resulting from that condition."

I wrote this yesterday and it is worth repeating. The calgary police arrested a man for numerous weapon and drug offences,YESTERDAY. This man was convicted for the slashing and stabbing murder of another in 2002.He went through the 'justice' system,all the way to the supreme court,was convicted,sentenced and out doing the same crap within 5 years. This is not right. Latimer being denied parole is not right. The justice minister,Rob Nicholson,can spring Hienz=Schrieber out of jail to attend a circus,he should be able to correct this travesty. His e=mail is NichoR@parl.gc.ca,take the time to let him know how you feel about the parole board's decision.

Thanks for the suggestion, farmerboy - it never occurred to me before to look up the actual judgement on-line.

I couldn't tell from what I just read at the SCOC web-site, but can anyone say if Latimer ever pled/tried to plead to some form of temporary insanity?

From what I read, Latimer initially tried to hide his actions, although he went on to fully confess when evidence of Tracy's murder was put before him; I respect him that he didn't try to pander to the parole board and just say what they seemed to want him to say (like so many career criminals seem to do and get away with doing).

I think it's also important to highlight what someone previously said - tough cases make for bad law. The parallel to the introduction of abortion to our country is an excellent parallel - what was sold to the Canadian public as an extreme measure to be used in serious cases has become a taboo topic that is used for virtually any reason. Euthanasia has been gaining the same slow acceptance in some modern societies - with stories of its abuses creeping out.

Reinforcing bones with steel rods, and cutting portions of other bones off to reduce high levels of pain to middling levels of pain, and daily seizures thrown in is MANAGEABLE?

What exactly is unmanageable then?

suzanne - You are speaking empty platitudes. Don't bother with the Charter and various 'inalienable rights'. That's nonsense. Tracy's 'potential', which means her future, was agonizing pain.

If you want to help someone, you don't enable them to have a future of agonizing pain. Could you enlighten us what you think her 'potential' was? Other than agony?

hans - was your grandmother screaming in agony? No? Good. Your anecdotal tale is completely different from the Latimer situation.

claude - exactly. That's what happens in hospitals, where no-one in their right mind can stand by and watch someone in agony. The only people who enjoy watching people in agony are sadists and terrorists.
The doctors/nurses give morphine. More and more, until the end. And yes, the doses are lethal.

In Latimer's case, he used carbon monoxide, which is a colourless gas, and simply, the individual falls asleep. No, hans, the chlorine in Hitler's gas chambers was quite different.

adune says it well; Tracy had moved into a state of severe degeneration. Medicine tries to allieviate or cure illness. It was unable to do so in this case.

Good god, tenebris, the answer to Tracy's condition was not a 'palliative care unit'! That wouldn't stop the degeneration or the pain! You simply don't get it; her body was disintegrating; the pain was extreme; she could not be given any painkillers stronger than regular Tylenol because they interfered with her medications that reduced her seizures and her lung fluid build-up.

Without that medication, she would literally choke to death on her lung fluids. Is that the death you suggest for her?

And no, the state, as expressed by individuals, also has the duty to show mercy and contextual judgment. Otherwise, the state is reduced to a mechanical robot.

MB - my deep sympathy, for you as a parent and for your daughter. Apparenly, Tracy was similar, but, with the deep care of her family, lived 'reasonably' until about 10-12, when her body began to disintegrate, her spinal curvature to become severe, and her pain unrelenting.

bluetech - no, I didn't make a comparison between ice cream and murder. You failed to get my point, which was that there was NO correlation between ice cream and murder, and to suggest that because sales of ice cream go up, and murder goes up, at the same time, doesn't mean that they have anything to do with each other.

ET - I don't want to minimize the pain Tracy/her family were going through - but the information entered about the Latimer judgement at the SCOC website indicates that further treatment/palliation (real word?) was possible. Do you have other information that would undermine this claim? Although pain is a very real part of everyone's life, some much more than others, there is also a great danger in describing a person's life primarily in relation to the pain/negativities that person undergoes. It dehumanizes Tracy to pretend that her personhood is lessened because of the pain she endured. This is the philosophical debate that we can't seem to agree on. Many seem to believe that pain decreases our humanity to the extent that we should 'put people out of their misery' when they reach a certain level of it, even if they don't in any sense request it. Others see value in human life itself, to the extent that no one has the right to arbitrarily decide when and how to end another person's life.

A leftist is as a leftist does. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Adune and E.T.
Thank-you for your thoughtful comments, adding much to the discussion. I am always amused at the muddled thinking (in my opinion) which seems to see nothing the least bit contradictory about allowing "nature to take its course", and allowing "god" to make the ultimate decision, while at the same time advocating for extreme medical intervention. I would speculate that without extreme medical intervention, people such as Tracy would not survive beyond infancy. The fact that she survived to the age of 12, when her father decided that her suffering was unendurable, and he acted on it, surely for her survival to this point, the credit (or blame) must be given to the medical profession, and not to god.

Somehow we have reached the point where a decision to remove life support from a patient is seen as the equivalent of "playing god". What am I missing? Is this not completely backwards?

ET:

I call rubbish. People die in agony around the globe on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons.

Is the method of dispatch relevant, or is there some pain quotient threshold that makes extermination of one's loved one permissible?

Is that threshold movable, and who decides the goalposts?

Should we send a message to society that it is okay to dispatch the disabled/dying, when they are 'too far gone'; whatever that nebulous concept might be.

My mother had 5 slip discs in her spine due to wartime abuse; did that make her life somehow less. She had a lifetime of pain, but that didn't mean it was joyless either.

Further, during her final year she was on 2500 mg of neurontin but still felt her extremities 'were on fire and burning' due to phantom pain, in addition to her regular spinal difficulties.

Add to that bladder, bowel, and all autonomic function difficulties such focusing the eye, body temperature regulation, heart arythmia, etc.

When exactly should I have simply expended a chamber from my rifle?

I am always amused at the muddled thinking (in my opinion) which seems to see nothing the least bit contradictory about allowing "nature to take its course", and allowing "god" to make the ultimate decision, while at the same time advocating for extreme medical intervention.

It's in human nature to help. Even those with a perverted morality who advocate killing the helpless claim they're "helping".

...the credit (or blame) must be given to the medical profession, and not to god.

Who gave medical practioners the brains and talent?

shane o - yes, go to

http://robertlatimer.net/index.shtml

Click on the medical section, and you'll see what Tracy's doctors said about her condition. Their statements also reject the Supreme Court's suggestion that 'alternative pain remedies' existed. The Latimers kept asking the court what these 'alternative pain remedies' were, because their doctors knew of no such remedies. No response from the court.

Read also Letters and Articles. Read it all, and you'll hopefully understand more of a situation in which, I hope, none of us has to endure.

Hans - again, I don't want to minimize your mother's pain, but I suggest you check out this site as well.

ET, I'm sorry, but you are making medical statements that you cannot support. I suggest you back away from what isn't medically clear in this case.

Neither epilepsy nor pulmonary edema rules out succesful pain management. People are treated successfully for pain, the elderly especially with similar multiple systems problems/failures.
"Severe degeneration" is not clinically meaningful without better specifics.

I posed the question that did the dad explore/understand/dismiss/have access to relevant medical options before his actions.

None of us can criticize the Latimers unless we have lived their situation. To have looked after Tracy at home for 12 years with all her complex medical problems, is inconceivable. I am sure few of us could have done this with the same love, dignity and selflessness the Latimers did.

Most parents would have dumped their child into an institution when the going got too tough.

As an R.N., for the medical community to even consider operating on Tracy, in my opinion, is utterly incompetent, inhumane, and tantamount to torture. Tracy was a very poor candidate for surgery and most probably would not have survived.

How would you like to have your muscles severed from the bone, bones broken and re-set, and rods inserted alongside your spine.....and only with Tylenol post-operatively if she even survived the surgery. Remember, Tracy was 5 feet tall, 38 lbs., seizure-ridden, and in chronic intractable pain.

I would like to know how Tracy was expected to medically withstand the rigors of anesthesia but, could not be given anything stronger than Tylenol for pain?

Robert Latimer euthanized his child to save her from worsening intractable pain and in some ways from a medical and legal system which does not assist individuals like Tracy, to die with dignity and in peace. Our pets are treated better!

Watching children in excruciating pain is heart-rending and unbearable even for the most seasoned medical personnnel. I was in tears many times as patients screamed in agony, begging for an end to their suffering, and nothing more could be done.

Robert Latimer acted out of love. How heartless and ill-informed many of you people are!

Penny:

Strong pain medication is contra-indicated in patients with pulmonary edema. It slows their respirations, reduces their oxygen intake and thus could cause death.

Pain management is at best very difficult. Pain is patient and disease specific. Many different regimes and dosages must be tried before the right drug or combination of drugs is achieved.

Elderly patients are epecially prone to problems with pain medications because of the side-effects even with small dosages...as are children!

Brilliantly argued, Gypsy. The question to me is, did Mr. Latimer act out of sufficient compassion, and indeed, in this case, love, to justify his action, when all the data is in. It seems to me he did; others disagree.

But consider this. Say we go to heroic efforts to prolog the life of a person. Say it isn't working any longer. Already without the heroics one would already be deceased, yet now when the heroics are no longer effective we are not allowed to terminate the heroics (as compasionately as possible) because one will die?

Is that what we want? Fine, problem solved: ban heroics. Stop trying to save lives, then you won't have to be bothered by the reality of dealing with cases where it isn't working well.

And if any of you, dear readers, think that you are personally absoved from making these kinds of fine moral judgement calls, because of some abstract system of god or science or whatever set of rules you have written down, then there are two possibilities: either you will find out you are wrong, or you will die before that.

1) First, we can in fact judge ('criticize') Mr. L as we are all human beings that are capable of making ethical distinctions. This 'you can't judge if you haven't experienced it' line of argumentation is complete and utter nonsense. Your judgment might not be as sound given the limiting factor of your experience, but to take the position advanced to its logical conclusion the only people who could sit in the jury box at a murder trial would themselves be murderers.

2) Our pets are chattel property without inalienable rights. Here we are discussing a human being, regardless of how unfortunate the situation of that human being is.

3) Whether or not Mr. L acted out of love is in fact irrelevant, as he committed a culpable homicide. With the exception of the defense of necessity (ie YOUR life was threatened) or the exception of armed conflict (which is non-culpable homicide), the measure of compassion one takes when murdering another person is entirely irrelevant. It might be considered as a mitigating factor at time of sentencing, but in the case of murder the minimum sentence is also the max -- see the decision re: the constitutional exemption given Latimer for his murder.

4) As the court said, he had the choice of continuing treatment or institutionalizing his daughter. He also had the choice of declining treatment. That would have proportionately increased her suffering until such time as she died naturally, but it would not have resulted in a culpable homicide. This is a hard case, and hard cases make bad law -- but the law is clear. Regardless of motive, regardless of consent, regardless of ethical claims to some higher good, in this country an individual simply does not have the right to take the life of another unless their own life is immediately and directly threatened.

5) Further to #4, we do not allow doctors to end the lives of their patients; any examples cited by individuals who claim that docs do a nose-tweak when it comes to certain terminal illnesses are not elucidating anything other than crimes that have not been reported -- which, if they were, would result in the prosecution of the parties involved.

6) And finally, if this man wants to go in front of the parole board and claim that no crime was committed, he can remain in jail. The unarguable fact, as determined by trial, is that a crime WAS committed.. and we don't parole unrepentent individuals. If he's that strong in his convictions I applaud him for the simple act of staking his life on what he believes (however repugnant that belief might be), and I'm certainly not happy that we parole all kinds of lie-through-the-teeth types. The law is the law, however.

Vitruvius: You have nailed the medical moral and philosophical dilemma very well.

It is the rare Doctor who applies, with knowledge and compassion, humane boundaries and limits of medical intervention.

There is a time for heroics and a time for a compassionate end to life. Everyone, except for Robert Latimer, missed the boat in this case.

Gypsy, I'm not arguing that pulmonary edema and narcotics aren't a problem, but, trying to drill down into this story I still don't see what the real medical situation and the options were.

Was this kid's pulmonary edema(?) separately treatable, thus allowing her better pain management options or....? Again, the bottomline is what were dad's options before he acted?

This is one of those stories you pray you never get called for jury duty. Enough said.

Let us forget the family connection for a moment and imagine that Robert Latimer was a paroled child killer when he killed Tracy (remember no family connection) Not only would he be out on parole by now, but know one (not even his victims families) would have any right to know where he was. Yet he would be free to move in right next door to them and they wouldn't be able to say BOO! to him.

That is what is wrong here

Does anyone here know what an absolute discharge is? It's a judgment passed by a duly constituted Canadian court of law that says "guilty but not convicted". I'm not saying whether or not such a judgment should have been passed in the case of Mr. Latimer. But I am saying that arguments that "the law is the law and that's that" are wrong if they don't take into account the absolute discharge rule, and the reasons it has evolved into being.

McGrimm suggests that why Mr. Latimer acted is irrelevant. I disagree, and so does the history of jurisprudence. One does not try a case without considering mens rea. McGrimm suggests that "That would have proportionately increased her suffering until such time as she died naturally, but [...]". Yeh, "but" all right, but you're not suffering interminable torture.

Finally, McGrimm suggests that, as he calls them, "nose-tweaks" are just unreported crimes. Heh. Um, ok. I'll say no more, because as Benjamin Franklin noted, "He that would live in peace and at ease must not speak all he knows or all he sees."

Thomas Jefferson said, "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

What rights did Tracy have as an individual? Essentially none -- she was functionally a vegetable. In this case, does not the proxy decision for her judgment calls fall to her default power of attorney (and I use the term loosely), her parents? Or do you think that should be up to the god-almighty tyrant state?

Yes, dear leader, obey the law, compassion is just a human weakness.

I can't really bear to read this thread, I find the whole situation so heart-wrenching. I think advocates for the disabled community are doing their own community a grave disservice by suggesting that Latimer's act was about Tracy's disability, rather than about her pain. I wish something could be done to end this travesty of justice. Is it possible for the Minister of Justice to intervene in something like this? Enough is enough. Noone is benefiting from continuing to keep Latimer in jail.

Make no mistake, Mr. Latimer is guilty of a very serious offense, but in this case the punishment does not seem to fit the crime. If this was a pedophile rape murder, he would already be out. If drug addiction or alcohol abuse was a mitigating factor, he'd be out. If he just would lie to the parole board and not tell them that he doesn't regret his actions because he thought he was being merciful, he would be out.

I wonder what the morally challenged would have said if a stranger had entered the Latimer's home and murdered Tracy? Would they be calling for his/her release?

It is not the case that a stranger entered the Latimer's
home and murdered Tracy. May we have the next
question please?

I have to say.... although I'm not a parent.. I can't imagine putting myself in Robert Latimer's place. I can't say that I wouldn't make the same choice in his shoes. I heard someone saying on Gormley that he was "playing God" by taking his daughters life... but weren't the doctors "playing God" by prolonging her life and pumping all those drugs into her system to keep her alive? I don't judge Robert Latimer for being a parent and making the decision that he believed was in the best interests of HIS child when she was unable to. And I don't believe it's fair for people to judge him based on this act. Who was supposed to make the decisions for her? The doctors who only spent a portion of the time with her? Or the family that had been with her since birth, seen her pain, and shared her suffering? I hope that my family has the strength to help me to go if, God forbid, I'm ever in a situation where I'm in constant pain but cannot communicate my wishes to my family.

According to your morals, she needed killing. What's the difference who killed her?

That's just it ol hoss. If it had been a stranger that had done this he would have been paroled by now. Our justice system would have seen fit to do it inspite of the protests from the people you call morally challenged.

Sarnia Jim: Good point.

Our judiciary has lost sight of the purpose of the penal system. Offenders should be sentenced and incarcerated because they have committed a crime and must be removed to protect society. Punishment should be applied with logic and reason.

Our Liberal justice system is nothing more than a babysitting service. The system promotes rehabilitation and gives criminals every opportunity and benefit of the doubt.

The judiciary treats criminals with compassion, while those like Robert Latimer who actually deserve compassion, are treated harshly and with little logic and reason.

Had Robert Latimer been a psycopath, and played "the game" with the parole board, he would have received day parole and after 10 years received full parole.

Under the Canadian judicial system, real criminals win every time!

Are you arguing for murderers to be kept in jail, or released from jail. You seem a little confused.

Yes, I do thank you so much Hoss for stating my morals for me, saves me having to work them out myself I s'pose. You're so god-danmed sure of yourself that you can't even see that other people here are trying to have an intelligent discussion about a complex problem: as others have noted, hard cases make bad law. But oh no, if we just did everything Ol' Hoss's way, all our problems would be solved. No, wait a second, that's just silly.

Meanwhile, Cass raises, I think, a number of good points.

mr latimer is paying pennance, with every day he spends in jail. if "they" decide to keep him there indefinitely, because they can, he will stay there indefinitely because he's paying every single day.

Back and forth they weave, as reeds shaken in the wind.

And then they complain about politicians doing the same thing.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
-- Albert Einstein

What has always made the state a hell on earth has been
precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.
-- Friedrich Hoderlin

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell

An attitude of permanent indignation signifies great mental poverty.
Politics compels its votaries to take that line and you can see their
minds growing more impoverished every day, from one burst of
righteous indignation to the next.
-- Valery

A friend just sent this to Stephen Harper, The Minister of Justice and the Gov. General;

I am appealing to your well known sense of justice to use your position to overturn the decision of the parole board to deny Robert Latimer parole.

Robert Latimer did not end his child's life out of hate. He did not destroy her because of her disability. He ended her life to cut short an enduring agony that could have lasted her lifetime.
Any Canadian with conscience and knowledge of the case knows Robert Latimer is not a killer by nature and therefore upon release, the chances of him re-offending are nil.

What Robert Latimer did was done out of love and mercy. Can we not also extend mercy to this basically good citizen, his wife and children?

Signed --- - ------

Mercy cannot be extended to Mr. Latimer because the law, under the constraints of mandatory minimum sentencing, cannot distinguish between Robert Latimer and anyone else convicted of second degree murder, regardless of the circumstances of the crime. The Harper government you would appeal to is the same one that is seeking to expand mandatory sentencing and limit the judicial discretion that may have, with a saner approach, seen Latimer at home with his family.

Latimer is still in jail and will stay there for the full term because of disability group lobbying. They do not want him released because I'm sure they feel that it would be taking something away from them, making their lives less valuable maybe.

The no remorse thing is just a story, corrections is agreeing with lobbying by disability groups - and they have a point.

Personally I would like to see him released - he's done enough time and I'm sure he's not about to go hunting for another disabled person - perish the thought.

While Vitruvius is quoting dead people he should be aware that a living dog is better than a dead lion. Eccl. 9:4

Latimer killed his daughter. The circumstances mitigated his actions somewhat. If these were the only two facts, I could accept some sentencing leniency.

Unfortunately, the eugenics movement adopted Latimer as a cause celebre. They made Latimer the poster boy for the notion that a right to life does not apply to the disabled. (I'm sorry if it sounds strong but that is the upshot of the pro-Latimer side - whether they realize it or not.)

Once Latimer's friends framed the issue, turning a blind eye to murder ceased to be a morally acceptable option for the courts or the Canadian public. Some friends.

The murderer should have been put to death. The sentence he received was more than just (more lenient than what he deserved) and the parole did its job magnificently.

*parole board

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell

Vitruvius, the first part of Russell's statement certainly applies to people like ol hoss. Another is "There is no fool like an old fool". Time for the village idiot to saddle 'ol hoss' up and ride him out of town, apologies to the village idiot.

As you, ET, Gypsy and others have so eloquently stated it is about compassion and love for your child. Latimer was convicted for his "crime" by our laws, now show some compassion and let him go.

Tres simplement, Mens Rea is _not_ motive. No court in this country cares WHY someone commits a crime; it only cares whether or not they formed the specific intent to be convicted under the statute. Compassion does not enter into mens rea formulation, and Canadian criminal law is not American criminal law (where motive is considered an element of the offense tried).

sorry, skimmed recent comments only:

ol hoss: I'm curious. Do you support capital punishment?

Living is a tough one way proposition. There will be times of loss, times of illness and times of hurt. From the moment we're conceived one thing is guaranteed: life will generally get harder one day at a time - until it is at last gone.

Tracy's path was going to be shorter and tougher than the vast majority of us. But I believe that she did have a purpose for being here if only to show us the strength of the human spirit. That god given miracle we call the will to live. Progress comes from enduring and pushing hard to the end in all things. Failure comes from quitting and accepting defeat not because we can't but because it feels too hard (I know that one too well).

In the future there will be other Tracy Latimers. However, her 12 years of struggling to live is a stepping stone to giving those future Tracy's the chance to experience better lives. She's a hero and her folks were too until one day they let themselves feel too sorry for her and ignore her contribution to the future of those that will share her condition.

Vitruvius, as a matter of technical interest, the man's attitude has nothing to so with mens rea. Mens rea goes to his understanding of the actual nature of his actions. It has nothing to do with his motives or his self-esteem.

Latimer took steps to kill his daughter. If he had believed that what he was doing would not kill her, then he does not have the mens rea to be convicted of homicide. If he had been completely unaware of what he was doing, ditto. But if he did what he did because he thought a demon or an angel had told him to, sorry, he still knew that he was killing her. He had the mens rea. If he did it because he thought a big tough man like him had an obligation to kill weaklings, or because he thought it would be fun, same result. His attitudes are relevant to how he should be punished. They have nothing to do with the mens rea which is necessary for guilt.

ebt - it may be taking the issue too far, but I think that vitruvius is right to consider 'mens rea', because Latimer does not think that he did a reprehensible action.

Don't take this too far, eg, as your examples have done; your examples don't apply to this situation.

The reality is, that no medical treatment was available to treat his daughter; as her body disintegrated, her pain was increasing. Penny's various questions about 'other medications' were all thoroughly dealt with by the doctors. There was nothing that could be done. Latimer did not see how he could stand by and watch someone in agony.

Our laws are not derived from divine revelation; we human beings developed and wrote our laws. We haven't developed a law that can deal with this situation. What does someone do when a relative or patient's body is disintegrating without remedy, and as it does, it puts them in a continuous state of physical agony?

We hide our head in the sands on this question. We allow doctors and nurses to administer lethal doses of morphine. What about outside of the hospital? What does our society permit us to do, to help people in agony?

We get all worked up when it's defined as 'Our soldiers handed them over to the Taliban to be tortured. We give Arar millions of dollars simply because he says, without proof, that he was tortured in Syria. So, we get all worked up about torture by others. What about torture by our own body's disintegration?

That's a major question that we refuse to deal with. Torture is torture, whether inflicted by the Taliban or one's own body.

It's a case of institutional lag. Canadian society failed Latimer.

Certainly, you can't allow individual citizens to make these decisions unilaterally. You need some kind of judicial or quasi judicial body to decide on euthanasia for extreme cases like the Latimer child. And obviously, if the patient's opinion can be garnered, that would be the decider. After all, the state has taken a hands off approach to abortion, refusing to take the kind of theological position being argued here on the anti-Latimer side.

This judicial body: the parties might include the family doctor, an outside medical expert, a judge, the parents, etc.

The thing is it's not right to saddle all Canadians with a theological basis for this kind of issue. If your religion requires you to allow your child to suffer unimaginable pain, fine that's your decision for your family. But not for mine, or for Latimer's, or for ET's.

The factoid that really got me was the Supreme Court's claim that there were alternative medications available that in fact weren't. That just sounds like bureuacratic cover your a** memo to file stuff to me.

Sorry, if this has already come up, but did Mrs. Latimer know and approve of her husband's actions?

A very good thread, this!

ET - you still miss the point.

You are arguing the morality of euthanasia, not whether the parole board acted within their mandate, nor whether the courts accurately applied the then-existing law.

You are arguing for priviledge and exemption, as are many on this thread.

Whether the parole board is useless, inept and inconsistent is also another question.

(Parole should be abolished, and the boards dismantled).

Pay attention for gods's sake, ET. "Mens rea" has nothing to with this. He knew that what he was doing would kill his daughter. Therefore he had the mens rea. That's what the term means.

I'm well aware that he thought he deserved a candy bar for doing it, and that you'd give it to him. That has nothing to do with mens rea. The term does not concern his attitude towards himself and his actions. It refers only to what he understands himself to be doing. And it's not in dispute that he understood perfectly well that he was killing her. End of mens rea issue.

Me No Dhimmi:

I believe Latimer killed Tracy while his wife and children were at church.

His wife, Laura, and other family members are very supportive. To my knowledge, none have publicly voiced any disagreement with his actions.

MND:"If your religion requires you to allow your child to suffer unimaginable pain"

Slippery slope. Next thing, doctors will be performing late term abortions on kid's with cleft pallets...oops, too late.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/mar/17/health.healthandwellbeing

Warm up our hearts some more this holiday season with tales of faith, hope and love.

Thanks Gypsy, and thanks for your terrific posts! (as well as ET, Vitruvius and others).

Good point Tenebris. It's easy to mix up these issues: the legal one -- and the necessary limitations attaching -- and the moral argument for euthanasia. I believe (?) I'm for euthanasia for extreme cases BUT with very severe strictures -- being aware of the slippery slope risk.

I'm as confused as ever but on a much higher level thanks to the amazingly thoughtful posts on this thread. For me, the "gut test" says officially sanctioned euthanasia would have been the right course for this truly tragic story.

Martin B: Good point, but below yours I mention "severe strictures" would be required. And I think extreme pain would be the main factor -- certainly not depression, etc.

I'm very very aware of the slippery slope and how Europe may have slipped on it.

"He could have acted contrite. He could have expressed remorse and regret. He could have gotten that parole. Instead, he told the truth and in so doing honored the selfless act of love that ended his daughters life and took away his freedom."

Followed by,

"As someone who at one time was in such bad shape that my best prognosis was assisted living in a group home, I'm glad that no one took the initiative to gas me to death in their pickup truck. There turns out to be a helluva a difference between what doctors say is possible for a patient and what the patient can actually accomplish."

Indeed. And many cases to prove this statement.

"I am not happy about Latimer continuing to serve time (I don't take pleasure in his punishment), but I do think it's the right thing to do. It's not so much that he, specifically, poses a continued threat. It's that he sets an example for others who might be tempted to do the same kind of thing."

A plausible insight. Abortion?

"The system can convict Latimer but still show compassion for him. When the worst vermin in society are treated with more kindness and understanding than latimer you have a society that has lost its way."

An absolute failing of the 'root cause' justice system.

"As I said, in hospitals, they'll give high doses of morphine to terminally ill patients in agony. The fact that it 'interferes' with other medications is irrelevant. The patient dies, without agony, from a combination of the high doses, the illness."

But this is done in an accredited, state sanctioned environment, administered by professionals.

"In Tracy's case, there was no solution. They couldn't stop the physical degeneration; they couldn't stop the pain. What does a parent do?"

You don't know this. This is not an absolute. However unlikely, there are plenty of cases where the terminally ill have recovered from as bad a situation, if not worse.

"Thus if it is wrong for the state, it is wrong for the individual, period. It is not the job of the state or individual to play God."

Agreed. Despite the fact we are, and the state is playing God.

"God will come and get you all in good time. While pain, suffering and tragedy may be highly undesirable it is not an excuse."

This tragedy has always been played out without the intervention of the state, or those with morally superior ideas.

"For those who are want to play God, who decides who is worthy of euthanasia and under what circumstances."

A dangerous and slippery slope. Reminds me of 'Logans Run.'

"As has often been observed, hard cases make bad law. To wit we now have a nation that allows unrestricted abortion for any whim. But of course this was originally sold as a bill of goods "only in the most extreme cases."

Roe versus Wade, or Pandora's box?

"Latimer broke a law. He was charged, found guilty, and sentenced. The legal facts are not in dispute. What some here object to is that the state refuses to (a) show mercy, and (b) treat other guilty persons with equal “fairness”.

Think, people!

Individuals (are to) show love, mercy and compassion. The function of the state is to establish the rule of law and national security. It should avoid, strenuously, any temptations to make bad laws on the basis of hard cases. The end result is always worse."

But the same judicial rationale is not being applied across the board. Latimer is being singled out. Is his penalty fair?

"It is the rare Doctor who applies, with knowledge and compassion, humane boundaries and limits of medical intervention."

They don't know what they don't know and are constantly surprised by the urge of life in some and disappointed by the lack of it in others.

"There is a time for heroics and a time for a compassionate end to life. Everyone, except for Robert Latimer, missed the boat in this case."

Compassionate end to life? And you are appointed to make these decisions? I somewhat understand, if the individual asks, but if they don't and can't?

"What rights did Tracy have as an individual? Essentially none -- she was functionally a vegetable. In this case, does not the proxy decision for her judgment calls fall to her default power of attorney (and I use the term loosely), her parents? Or do you think that should be up to the god-almighty tyrant state?"

Good point. However, do any of us, including her father, know as a fact what absolute, other than the physical, "state" she was in? And therefore, not knowing that, because you can't, decide that you know?

"That's just it ol hoss. If it had been a stranger that had done this he would have been paroled by now. Our justice system would have seen fit to do it inspite of the protests from the people you call morally challenged."

---------------

As a mirror of our justice system, this case reflects that Robert Latimer has been singled out and prosecuted by the black and white rule of law. Without compassion or understanding.

The grey areas are always afforded to those sporting a 'root cause.' And thus to be forgiven on a cultural and domestic basis and rehabilitated through our tax dollars.

Typically, to offend again.

What Robert Latimer did was wrong. It was pre-meditated murder. He cannot know what spiritual state and communion his daughter was in. We cannot know this about each other.

However, did he commit this crime out of love and compassion, regardless of ignorance? Or, was it a selfish act? I think one would have to assume the former.

He should have been released. His prison is having to rationalise and justify what he did for the rest of his life.

MND, the "severe strictures" you talk about might very well include designer abortions - and we know how terribly that practice has already been applied (how many millions of these have been done just because the child was a girl?).

If Canada created such government sanctioned severe strictures, that could very well lead to a requirement for expectant mom's to go through a screening process to qualify for a birth permit. Identified conditions like Cerebral Palsy could mean automatic abortion but there would be no more Tracy Latimers to care for and no more Robert Latimers to jail. What other conditions do we include with such severe strictures? Downs Syndrome? Deformed limbs? Dwarfism?

Is that the kind of brave new world we want to spring forth to avoid this tragedy in the future? Aren't there more caring solutions that don't involve selling our society's collective soul? Isn't this what Canada's disabled so afraid of?

So... Kate and SDA are advocates and big supporters of the notion of Eugenics ... 'eh? I thought you were opposed to Eugenics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Martin B: I certainly share your concerns and strongly disapprove of the examples you cite.

leftdog: I've never seen a single example of anyone at sda including our host recommending the odious field of eugenics.

This thread was about relieving the unimaginable pain of a person whose bones were disintegrating in her body. Surely we can have honest disagreements about euthanasia while also realizing that not all of us share in the theological argument against it.

Leftdog - I am a supporter of adult literacy programs. If you send me an email privately, I'll do my best to get some help for you.

That's where euthanasia would lead, designer abortions. So much easy to kill 'em if you don't have to look them in the eye.

....back to latimer. he refuses to grovel and atone fer his evil ways and so he will continue to suffer at the hands (and mercy) of the all knowing, all seeing, allmighty National Parole Board. no groveliing = guilty

It is not that Robert Latimer was not guilty of a crime ,it is that the Justice System seems incapable of administering justice with a reasonable level of compassion.The right to paroll was set beyond reasonable limits and when it did come up Mr Latimer did not bow and grovel to satisfy the egoes of the Board Members.What is it that they fear from this man.He is not a threat to society.Mr Latimer's parol should have been granted,and now that it has'nt should be reschedualed for review.

Instead of arguing among yourselves and playing jury why don't those of you who think Robert Latimer should be out of jail fax the Govenor General's office at (613)998-8760 and tell her that you believe the rest of his sentence should be commuted and he shd receive a conditional pardon.
While your at it, if you'd lk to let the National Parole Board know what you think the fax# for the National office in Ottawa is (613)995-7474 and for the Prairie Region Office is (306)975-5892.
I have written to all of these authorities and altho I believe Mr. Latimer did the right thing, (something that I hope I wld have the courage to do were one of my children in Tracy's situation) I think the reason the Parole Brd refused his application was due to political reasons and the outcry from paranoid members of disabled peoples groups.
Also, there are many Canadian citizens who believe that in certain circumstances euthanasia should be an option. According to the parole board such thinking is sufficient to keep Robert Latimer in jail...how far is that away from rounding up all who hold that opinion and putting them away...how far is that from the Inquisiton?