Discussion of the Latimer Case

Discussion of the Latimer Case

Author

Institution

Introduction

Issues pertaining to mercy killing have always been controversial in Canada and many other countries in the world for a long time. Needless to say, every country abhors murder and imposes stringent measures that would not only punish the act but also deter other individuals from doing it in the future. However, there has been a thin line between mercy killing and murder, which is essentially the root of the controversy that surrounds the subject. While varied cases have brought this controversy to the fore, none has done it more than Robert Latimer’s case of 1993.

In this case, Robert Latimer, who was a Saskatchewan farmer, placed her 12-year old daughter named Tracy into his pickup truck and killed her through carbon monoxide poisoning. He connected a pipe from the exhaust to the pickup truck leading to her asphyxiation through carbon monoxide poisoning (Feldman, 1999). Of course, this would appear cruel on the face of it. However, it is imperative that one examines the condition of the girl. Tracy had been severely disabled since birth as she had suffered from cerebral palsy. In fact, her mental acuity at that age is equated to that of a 3- month old kid. Tracy had been entirely dependent on her parents since birth for every form of care round the clock (Feldman, 1999). Prior to ending the life of his daughter, Latimer had been informed that Tracy would need to undergo further surgical operations that would correct a hip dislocation that had become worse thanks to her advanced scoliosis. The scoliosis had advanced to such an extent that Tracy’s spine had diverged by about 75% from the perpendicular position. It is worth noting that Latimer had been advised that the surgical operation would result in an even more intense pain than she was already experiencing at the time. On the same note, Tracy would not be administered with pain killers that were more powerful that the regular Tylenol without running the risk of a coma for her. This is because she had to take other anti-convulsive medication so as to bring her epileptic seizures under control (Feldman, 1999). It goes without saying that Latimer was caught in a dilemma, where he had to choose between subjecting his lovely Tracy to even more painful and agonizing surgical operations without having the capacity to reduce the amount of pain that she would experience due to the adverse interactions between the medications that she was already taking and any palliative medication that was more powerful than regular Tylenol and ending her life (Feldman, 1999). Obviously, letting her live in her current status was out of question. These were the circumstances that led him to choose to bring her life to a halt all in an effort to give her a safe exit from pain. While there may be varied opinions pertaining to the actions of Latimer, his actions were sufficiently justifiable.

As much as Latimer was not shown as needing any rehabilitation for what carrying out an action that he perceived as his duty as a father, it is worth noting that Tracy is seen as beyond rehabilitation or even any meaningful identification beyond her physical disability, as well as outside her pain, agony and inescapable suffering. Scholars note that the cumulative effects or impact of the debilitating discourse leads to a construction that gives Tracy the image of a metaphor of pain and suffering. It goes without saying that Tracy was known and identified through her present, as well as potential pain and the suffering of unimaginable magnitude. In this case, her father’s decision to save her from further suffering by taking the entire issue of Tracy’s pain and suffering in his hands so as to eliminate her misery can be understood and even appreciated (Russell & Cohn, 2012). This is especially considering that Tracy, as one of the judges named Noble noted, had ceased to be an individual in the term’s full sense as she lacked something crucial, something that could essentially make her identifiable as a human being in the word’s normal sense.

On the same note, it is imperative that one examines the motives behind Latimer’s decision to end his daughter’s life, as well as the lifestyle or relationship that he had previously enjoyed with Tracy. In fact, the key difference between murder, mercy killing and even killing to protect oneself is the motive behind the action (Russell & Cohn, 2012). Noble underlines the fact that there are immense variations between who end other people’s lives out of malevolence, violence, hate or self interest, and individuals who do it for altruistic and caring reasons thereby assuming the position of surrogate or substitute decision makers (Russell & Cohn, 2012). This is what informed the argument that underlined the importance of creating a new group of criminal law falling under the “compassionate homicide” rubric. In Latimer’s case, it is worth noting that he did not want to end Tracy’s life as a goal, rather, the goal of his actions was to ease the pain that she had been experiencing, as well as protect her from further agony that was sure to come. Scholars and philosophers have noted that the value of life is not simply in existing but in deriving happiness that surpasses the sadness, pain and agony (Russell & Cohn, 2012). Obviously, this was not the case for Tracy Latimer, whose entire life has not only be marred by incredible agony but also derived of all happiness. As much as she could not voice her concerns or make the decision pertaining to undergoing assisted suicide or even mercy killing, her father acted in her best interests (Russell & Cohn, 2012). As Noble noted in the ruling, the law recognized there are variations in the moral blameworthiness and culpability of murder for different convicted offenders. In fact, he termed the act of ending Tracy Latimer’s life as an exceptional act of homicide that had been done for altruistic and caring reasons, choosing to label to as compassionate homicide (R. v. Latimer, 1997).

In addition, Noble, in his judgment noted that the relationship between Tracy and Latimer was that of a protective and loving parent whose only aim was to protect the daughter from undergoing more pain and suffering (R. v. Latimer, 1997). In fact, he noted that Latimer and his family had been living with Tracy for 12 years and made numerous efforts to rectify her situation including the cerebral palsy. As Noble stated in his defense against the ruling where he would have a life sentence and spend 10 years in jail without the option of parole, ending Tracy’s life, a daughter that he had been spoon feeding daily was the only way in which he could eliminate her intolerable pain. It is worth noting that the doctors had advised Latimer that Tracy could only be kept on mild Tylenol as that was the only palliative medication that would not interfere with the medication that she took to control her seizures (Bauslaugh, 2010).

Nevertheless, this position has been incessantly attacked by individuals who feel that human life is fundamentally a sacred journey in which only God has the right to make a decision on when it should end (Bauslaugh, 2010). This group of people thinks that ending any person’s life is reprehensible irrespective of the magnitude of pain that the individual is experiencing. In addition, there is the group that opines that showing any leniency to Latimer would be tantamount to giving a green to individuals who have disabled relatives to finish them off in the guise of ending their misery (Enns, 1999). In addition, they feel that the rights of Tracy were trampled upon as she did not participate in making the decision on whether to end her life or not (Enns, 1999).

While these may concerns may be legitimate, they are not sufficient as to support any other action apart from what Latimer did. Scholars opine that individuals who feel that God should be the only one to make a decision on whether to end a life or not should be allowed to go by that notion but their opinion should not be allowed to shape public policy on the same (Arabjanov, 2012). This is especially considering that there is an equally large number of people who hold contrary opinions. As for individuals who feel that such leniency would be an affront on the rights of the disabled, it is noteworthy that mercy killing is not about culling out individuals who are supposedly inferior, rather it is about protecting or safeguarding individual human rights (Arabjanov, 2012). They do not aim at disrespecting human life but to respect the dignity of human life. The issue on Tracy not having participated in the decision is aimed at safeguarding an individual’s right to personal autonomy. Of course, this concern highlights a problem pertaining to mercy killing or euthanasia (Bauslaugh, 2010). People should undoubtedly have control over what happens to their bodies, as well as choose the circumstances under which they die. However, euthanasia primarily targets individuals who are incapacitated to such an extent that they do not have the capacity to express such wishes (Teubner, 1988). Mercy killing is founded on the evaluation of what such an individual could reasonably be seen as having wanted but does not have the capacity to express (Teubner, 1988). In ideal cases, this decision would be made from a prior statement that such an individual would have made, which is not the case for Tracy Latimer (Amarasekara & Bagaric, 2002). In essence, this left the decision to a surrogate decision maker, the father, who made a decision based on love and motivated by the need to protect the daughter from immense pain that would have come with continued living.

In conclusion, mercy killing has been a contentious issue in Canada and other parts of the globe for a long time. The controversy emanates from the thin line between mercy killing and murder, especially considering that it is extremely difficult to determine the motive. In the case of Tracy Latimer, the father was justified in ending her life. He did it out of love and need to protect her from immense pain and suffering rather than selfish motives and hatred (Amarasekara & Bagaric, 2002). He had done everything that he could to alleviate her condition but he was at a tether’s end on this issue. On the same note, it is noteworthy that Tracy was beyond a condition where she could have been said to be human in the normal sense of the word, rather her life was a metaphor of agony and suffering.

References

Feldman, A. (1999) Violence and vision: The prosthetics and aesthetics of terror. Public Culture, 10 (1), 24-60.

R. v. Latimer. (1997). Ruling on defence motion. No. 37 J.C.B. Queen’s Bench Judicial Centre of Battleford.

Enns, R. (1999). A voice unheard: The Latimer case and people with disabilities. Halifax: Fernwood.

Teubner, G.. (1988). Autopoietic Law: A new approach to law and society. New York: Walter de Grutyer

Russell, J & Cohn, R (2012). Robert Latimer. New York: Book on Demand

Bauslaugh, G. (2010). Robert Latimer: A story of justice and mercy. Toronto: Lorimer.

Arabjanov, A (2012). Euthanasia as seen by Law, Morality and Religion. New York: GRIN Verlag

Amarasekara, K., & Bagaric, M. (2002). Euthanasia, morality and the law. New York [u.a.: Lang.