NationStates Jolt Archive

This man killed his severely disabled daughter. Do you think it was the right thing to do?

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/wire/article.jsp?content=n120554A

This man killed his severely disabled daughter. Do you think it was the right thing to do?

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/wire/article.jsp?content=n120554A

Only if the girl wanted to die. Otherwise, kill the ex-father.

Self-defence imo

Only if the girl wanted to die. Otherwise, kill the ex-father.

She couldn't talk. That's how much pain she was in.

She couldn't talk. That's how much pain she was in.

Could she hear? Could she signal?

Self-defence imo

How exactly?

I have allot of sympathy for him but I always have a slight nagging against euthanasia for the simple fact that doctors are supposed to fix people really

still life is a tad harsh in my mind, I would just go for some long term counseling

Only if the girl wanted to die. Otherwise, kill the ex-father.

killing people FTW!

Self-defence imo

she was on a drug pumped rampage

id say he has served enough time for his crime. they should have paroled him.

After a hearing today, National Parole Board members said they were left with the feeling Latimer has not developed sufficient insight and understanding of his actions.

bullshit.

only he and his wife truly understand their actions.

I can somewhat sympathize with this guy. I know you shouldn't murder someone but damn it sounded probably like the right thing to do. Animals are put down and people think of it as being merciful. Someone does it to thier child because of very obvious reasons it is murder.

Could she hear? Could she signal?

No one knows if she could hear, because she couldn't signal. And his parole was turned down because he wasn't remorseful. What do you think of that?

He did the right thing, he ended the girl's suffering.

He did the right thing, he ended the girl's suffering.

No one ever thinks of the Masochists. :(

No one knows if she could hear, because she couldn't signal. And his parole was turned down because he wasn't remorseful. What do you think of that?

Silly, rather. He is obviously not a bad person. But then again, our system is based-off justice, and not logic. Go figure.

No one knows if she could hear, because she couldn't signal. And his parole was turned down because he wasn't remorseful. What do you think of that?

why would he be remorseful? he did the only thing he could do to ease his daughters pain.

Hmm... the first one to agree with me.

You obviously didn't read into my response. If it was my decision this guy would walk today.

He did the right thing, he ended the girl's suffering.

Hmm... the first one to agree with me.

Could she hear? Could she signal?

Tracy Latimer had severe Cerebral Palsy. No indication she could do anything. The doctors were the ones who had said she was in incredible pain. The parents were planning to find a doctor who would do euthanasia. Robert Latimer only wound up killing his daughter because he felt her pain.

From what I know and read, she couldn't have even signalled.

How can he show "remorse" when he believes he helped his daughter by freeing her from the pain she was stuck in according to doctors?

We euthanise animals supposedly in pain, why do we make our own kin suffer?

The word euthanise is a Greek one, meaning "Good death". It is meant to end someone's suffering.

We never truly know if our beloved pets are in pain, we rely on our vets for that. Why should a human unable to convey a simple expression if pain be forced to live in that pain when the doctor has said that the person is in incredible pain?

Why does he have to share the same last name as me? :eek:

You obviously didn't read into my response. If it was my decision this guy would walk today.

Then he's the second

the thing I want to ask is why the doctors chose the seizure medication over the pain killers

it just seems slightly wrong to me

She would not have much of a quality of life and then her parents would be caring for her for all her life. Maybe the family support systems for them weren't there and he was not coping so he did what he did.

Could she hear? Could she signal?

From the court records...

MR. BRAYFORD CROSS-EXAMINATION:
Q Thank you, My Lord. Dr. Dzus, first of all,
dealing with Tracy specifically, over her lifetime
from infancy until the time of her death, was her
quality of life improving during that period of
time? I guess quality of life is a pretty abstract
concept but what was happening to her life?

A That's a difficult question because Tracy did not
have the ability to communicate like we communicate
so you had to rely on actions and facial
expressions to try to understand what she was
thinking or if she was even capable of thinking.

Link (http://www.robertlatimer.net/documents/page110.htm)

Why does he have to share the same last name as me? :eek:

because your big sister is always watching you...when your sleeping!

Then he's the second

*coughs*

Hmm... the first one to agree with me.

You can count another agreeing with you. If it was that bad, then I hope someone would kill me.

What does the law think? He is going to go about shooting people in the mall?

You can count another agreeing with you. If it was that bad, then I hope someone would kill me.

What does the law think? He is going to go about shooting people in the mall?
They say he's a danger to the disabled community and that he sees himself as a martyr for his cause

They say he's a danger to the disabled community and that he sees himself as a martyr for his cause

I'll tell you want a danger to society is, the damn parole board. They free Homolka but they keep Latimer locked up. Now that is royally fucked up.

I always felt that he should have gone free.

They say he's a danger to the disabled community and that he sees himself as a martyr for his cause

...Surely you jest.

I, myself am for legalizing suicide.

...Surely you jest.

No, he's not. The federal parole board is run by anal fuckwits who don't know a hole in a doughnut from the hole in their ass.

...Surely you jest.

I, myself am for legalizing suicide.

Completely serious....

the thing I want to ask is why the doctors chose the seizure medication over the pain killers

it just seems slightly wrong to me

Her pain increased as her body degenerated. However, the only painkiller that could be used was regular Tylenol, a mild drug that gradually loses its effectiveness over use period. Any painkiller stronger than regular Tylenol would have rendered her comotose and in hospital on life support.

That's the reason it seems, from the same site as linked before.

Completely serious....

How is he a danger to the disabled community? Absurd!

Martyr? If yes, so what?

How is he a danger to the disabled community? Absurd!

Martyr? If yes, so what?

The idea, I suppose, is that disabled people have as much a right to life as any other. Along with a right to life, there should be quality of life.

Any danger to the disabled community comes, I suppose, from the idea that allowing Mr. Latimer off would give in to the idea that it's okay to essentially murder disabled people as their right to life is in some way less that non-disabled people.

For leniency to be applied in this case, it had to be shown that there was no way for quality of life to be improved, that she was simply deteriorating beyond medical help.

It appears that the court believed, against every other doctor's opinion, a lawyer who contended that painkillers inserted intra-nasally to the stomach would have alleviated pain. In that sense, the quality of life would have been improved.

It was, and remains, utter rubbish.

To be honest, it was not for Mr. Latimer to take the law into his own hands and what he did was, essentially, wrong.

Yet we can all understand the misery and pain inflicted not only on the child but on the parents themselves. Disregarding the law, what he did was for the best given the circumstances.

It's a tragic case, and he should be let out but, to be honest, judges apply the law not medical opinion.

I think the Dad did the right thing, I mean to be in constant pain, I wouldn't want to live that way. I think they should've paroled him, I mean comon, he's not Charles Manson or Dr. Kevorkian, he's just a dad who ended his daughter suffering.

For once, a man who does the right thing when killing someone who isn't a threat. Never thought I'd ever get a chance to say that.

For once, a man who does the right thing when killing someone who isn't a threat. Never thought I'd ever get a chance to say that.

This is actually pertinent because it ties in to why he was given the sentence he was given, and therefore why remorse needs to be shown for parole. The defense's argument was that there was a type of threat and therefore what he did was necessary.

In order for leniency in murder to be given, necessity must be shown and the 3 parameters of necessity are:

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.

The defense argued that the first was met in terms of imminent peril and danger to the child, however, given the idea that an intra-nasal tube could have relieved pain, the courts held that since the pain could have been relieved, there was no imminent peril or danger
The second ties into this, given imminent peril and danger, was there an alternative - the court held yes, the alternative form of relieving pain.
The third was declared open to judgment but was already irrelevant to some extent.

However...

One of the most vindictive critic of the Latimers is a Winnipeg lawyer, Mr. Mitchell.....I think he was largely responsible for convincing the Court that a pain-relieving drug would become miraculously more effective if given by a stomach tube.

I want to comment about that:-

(a) The only pain relieving drug Tracy was allowed was liquid Tylenol...it would give no relief for severe pain.

(b) It is almost impossible to get a nasogastric tube down the right way in a patient who cannot cooperate by swallowing at just the right time. And insertion of a tube into the stomach through the abdominal wall (gastrostomy) requires a surgical operation.

(c) Either kind of tube can be easily pulled out by a restless child waving her arms about. If Tracy had a tube in, she would have to be wrapped up to restrain such movement at all times.

In summary: Mr. Mitchell’s medical fantasies make no sense, but the Supreme Court Justices seem to have believed them. And only two of the intervener groups appear to have any medical connection; the Christian Medical and Dental Society and the Physicians for Life. But there is no evidence that any qualified doctors testified at the Supreme Court hearings.

Bolded by me and slightly abridged, full letter can be seen here (http://www.robertlatimer.net/medicaldoctors/dr_dbstewart-letter.htm)

I think the Dad did the right thing, I mean to be in constant pain, I wouldn't want to live that way. I think they should've paroled him, I mean comon, he's not Charles Manson or Dr. Kevorkian, he's just a dad who ended his daughter suffering.

Er, Dr. Kevorkian did pretty much the exact thing that guy did.

Er, Dr. Kevorkian did pretty much the exact thing that guy did.

Kevorkian didn't do just one and they were not family members. Emotions I think play a big part in this case.