There was a request in the comments to open a thread on the Robert Latimer case, back in the news today as he was denied day parole. This is your opportunity to discuss – but please be respectful of each other’s opinions. I have my own position – that what he did was a crime, but the sentence an injustice – but I understand these questions go to people’s core beliefs.
Story here for our US readers. It falls short in describing the level of pain Tracy was suffering, the surgery that was planned for her, and her deteriorating condition at the time of her death.
On topic links are ok.
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.