Thank God I've never been in a situation where any of my children were suffering and no one in the system could help. Would I take the matter into my own hands and help my child end their suffering? Big questions that transcend the issue of whether Latimer felt any remorse.
Posted at 2008-02-28 08:41:46 [PermaLink]He doesn't feel remorse because his daughter was in hideous pain and there was no medical way to relieve it. We wouldn't allow a dog to suffer as she did. I'm not really a euthanasia advocate, but a more obvious case of "mercy killing" never existed.
And yes, Latimer represents no threat to society. He killed his own child, not somebody else's.
If he said he DID feel remorse I'd be MORE concerned, for exactly the reason Ellie stated. A principle is a principle and he's sticking to his.
All the best to Mr. Latimer. I certainly hope he can salvage the rest of his life; what's gone before has certainly been no picnic.
Funny: Latimer gets convicted for first degree murder and gets 10 years.
This guy: [External Link]gets 10 years for manslaughter for shooting at one guy and missing.
I know which one afraid of...
I disagree with the suggestion that Mr. Latimer is not a potential threat to public safety. He is that most dangerous of men - the true believer - who sees absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. Such is his zeal that I would not put it beyond the realm of possibility that he would encourage or even assist in the extinction of other handicapped people in the name, of course, of "mercy". Our own prairie Kevorkian.
Posted at 2008-02-28 11:42:35 [PermaLink]What Latimer did was against the law, but under the circumstances I'm not so sure I agree it was wrong.
I'm troubled by the attitude of Laney Bryenton, executive director of the B.C. Association for Community Living, who "is also worried that Latimer ... can lobby the federal government over the issue of euthanasia." The ability to petition the government is one right that should never be taken away and one that should be respected by all citizens in a democracy.
Exactly Bruce; Ms. Bryenton's lack of empathy for the Latimers, and her zealotry, is far more worrisome than the chance of Mr. Latimer EVER repeating his 'offence'.
Posted at 2008-02-28 19:22:14 [PermaLink]You know, with all these high minded phrases about how noble Latimer is and how we should all empathise with him, one might think that he had solved global warming, or discovered a cure for cancer. It almost makes one forget that he killed a little girl.
"Latimer represents no threat to society. He killed his own child, not somebody else's" Well I guess that makes it all right then. Would you allow the same logic to apply for every other parent who only kills "his own child, not somebody else's"? There are lots of people in jail for murdering "only their own' child, or "their own" wife, and thus pose no threat to anyone else, right? Or is logic really out the window here, and the support for Latimer based more on the fact that he has made himself a media star than any rigorous examination of morality? Isn't it a WORSE crime that a father killed his own child? She was his child, but that doesn't mean he owns her. She isn't his property. She is a human being with not one whit less claim to the right to human dignity and life as any other human being. Latimer had no right in law, or morality, or as a parent to take away that life.
"lack of empathy for the Latimers, and her zealotry, is far more worrisome" Yes, right, of course a zealots desire to prevent a future policy of euthanasia for handicapped children is a MUCH more disturbing prospect than a convicted murderer's unrepentant and unremorseful attitude toward killing sick kids. Heaven forbid that we should have zealotry! In reality it is a false argument to suggest that one cannot feel empathy for the Latimer's (Or any other parent with a handicapped child) difficulties, and at the same time recoil in horror at Latimer's solution, and demand justice for a dead little girl. No. I think we can do both.
I'm not troubled about Latimer missing out on his right to petition the government to make his actions acceptable or legal. Latimer had the full exercise of his rights in a court of law, and with the parole board. So now he wants to rally supporters to petition the government to do something like legalize child killing for specific reasons? And no one is supposed to object to that? And do we apply the same logic to other situations, say, a pedophile in a halfway house lobbying the government to lower the age of consent? A convicted rapist on parole doing press interviews demanding respect for his alternate sexual lifestyle? A bank robber demanding free speech rights for his "protest against the capitalist economy"?
I won't say that extenuating circumstances don't play a role in the adminstration of justice. But really, I don't hear a lot about extenuating circumstances from Latimer. I don't hear him saying that under great stress he made a horrible mistake that he will regret forever. I don't hear him saying that he was temporarily insane and would do anything to get his little girl back. No, I hear someone who has been encouraged by the liberal media and politically correct establishment to believe he can be exonerated, even celebrated for acting on his "principles".
"A principle is a principle and he's sticking to his" Well, that isn't anything to be proud of, if the principles are faulty and lead to wrong actions. When principles lead to such consequences as murder,imprisonment, suffering, etc. it is by far more noble to seek better ones to live by.
Every person who feels so strongly supportive of Latimer really needs to come to grips with this question: "Under what circumstances is it all right to unlawfully take another human's life?" When is it ok to kill your little girl? Before she is born, because you wanted a boy child? When she is a baby and scores developmentally and intellectually below the average? When she is a teenager and starts dating a boy from another religion, and your family honor is at stake? Surely in all such cases, we need to empathize with the distress and suffering of the child and her family, right? Isn't there a human rights commission willing to take up this case of people having to live with difficult problems they didn't ask for? Maybe we should have a government program or service that will humanely terminate the lives of these unfortunates for us so that caring parents like Robert Latimer won't have to do it themselves.
"he killed a little girl"
Is there ever a point at which heroic efforts to keep someone alive, no matter what his or her condition, are not justified? If so, who should make the decision?
"he wants to rally supporters to petition the government to do something like legalize child killing for specific reasons? And no one is supposed to object to that?"
There is nothing wrong with objecting to his aims. There is with trying to keep him jailed (or otherwise silenced) to prevent him from petitioning the government and presenting his argument.
"do we apply the same logic to other situations, say, a pedophile in a halfway house lobbying the government to lower the age of consent?"
The age of consent is a result of a political consensus. People can, and do, petition the government for changes. Even pedophiles do. That is the nature of a democracy.
"Every person who feels so strongly supportive of Latimer really needs to come to grips with this question 'Under what circumstances is it all right to unlawfully take another human's life?'"
Let's remove the "unlawfully" part, because that can be changed by consensus, and ask does every zygote need to be kept alive? What about a brain-dead body hooked up to a life-support system?
The line is drawn by political consensus, and that consensus holds that what Latimer did was unlawful, but Latimer is certainly within his rights to argue the law is wrong and to petition to have it changed. I think people are upset because Latimer’s position has some merit and might change the political consensus.
Latimer will no doubt now write a book to tell us of his *harrowing* experience and all.
And what if, in the near future, medical science advances to the point where his dead daughter's condition could have been vastly improved or even cured?
What would he say then, and would he display even a hint of remorse?
I don't like the guy.
"what if ... his dead daughter's condition could have been vastly improved or even cured?"
Which part? The brain damage that left her with the mental capacity of a 3-4 month old baby? The 5-6 seizure a day? The severe cerebral palsy? The constant "great deal of pain"? The repeated surgeries and feeding tube necessary to keep her alive?
Are you aware of any "near future, medical science advances" that would have significantly changed the above? Is medical science on the verge of repairing serious brain damage?
This is not a black and white area and will only become more muddied as medical science finds new ways to keep people alive. As for a book, Lastimer may write it as a matter of advancing his argument, but I seriously doubt his motivation in killing his daughter was money.
I am an opponent of the death penalty. But just this once, I honestly believe I could pull the switch! Latimer had no right to decide on whether Tracy lived or died. It was her life, whatever its perceived quality. Oh, I can hear someone thinking "But you don't know what it's like to live day in and day out with a suffering child." WRONG. I am the father of a disabled person. Angela was supposed to live to 20. Come this November she will be 30! I know what it is like to watch a daughter go from independent walking to a wheelchair, and back to infancy (at least physically, not mentally). I know the weariness of night after endless night doing without a lot of sleep. I know the emotional trauma of parents as they watch their daughter's muscles atrophy to the point that they are incapable of holding joints together. Doing that PLUS the many duties of a Parish Priest tends to wear one down. And yet, she never asked to come into this world (which she did at the very moment of conception, BTW). That was a conscious decision of her parents. Our duty, which we shoulder gladly, if at times wearily, is to make her life as enjoyable for her as we possibly can. To give her the very best quality of life that is within our power. If Mr. Latimer was unable to do that, then there are state agencies whose responsibility it is to care for the handicapped. Under no circumstances was it acceptable for him to murder his own daughter. That is not love. It is not "mercy". It is violence perpetrated for the sake of his own convenience.
Posted at 2008-03-06 13:08:25 [PermaLink]