Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
I actually defend the decision to keep Latimer in prison for exactly this fact. They have legalized Euthanasia in some places in Europe and I've found many articles describing situations where people were 'mercy killed' where their participation in the process could be severly questioned. Also I remember reading recently an article (sorry no link) where it described that in some of these countries there was a higher incidence of people dying for the reason of not trying to be a burden upon loved ones, not that they no longer got any value out of life. It's a slippery slope I wish us not to go down as a society.
Another thing about the Latimer case is his lack of respect for our laws and lack of acknowledgement that individuals shall not be the judge of what laws to obey or not to obey even when dealing with a family member. Should the moral compass of the population support mercy killings then let it pass as law in parliament. Should he be classified as a hero than many other people might see their own moral grey areas where the law comes down one side or another as somewhere to take things into their own hands too. Someone born into poverty could argue that the laws against theft is wrong and should protect people who steal from grocery stores to feed their families, afterall they're all victims of circumstance too right?
|
That's the point though. She was so far gone and incoherent, she couldn't participate, and therefore it fell to the parents as guardians to make the decision. Its no different than pulling the plug on a comatose patient. They can't make the decision for themselves... they very well could wake up tomorrow, in 10 years, or not at all... but the decision is made to release them. Should the POA/Legal Guardian be charged with second degree murder in that case? absolutely not. That is a form of euthanasia that we already consider legal. This is merely an extension of this scenario, moving from passive to active, and that is what makes it a shade of grey.
Its also not so much a case of "can we take care of this person/do we want to" as it is "can this person ever recover." Say that it is so, and you're 100% right... by having euthanasia illegal with back alley medical practitioners and desperate acts like Latimer, there is no way to regulate this mentality except trying to make examples of people, and with the mental state of people who commit this, that tactic is extremely ineffective. If it is legal, there would be a process in place, and a system of checks and balances to ensure its being done in a correct and ethical way. Latimer is no hero, but he's no villain either. Its a shade of grey.
Funny you mention the moral compass. That moral compass is something that should be kept as far away from this decision as possible. I don't think people should have to live with unacceptable circumstances (backalley abortions, living in terminal pain and suffering, etc.) to satisfy someone's moral compass. This needs to be studied professionally and objectively and the morals and politics have to be kept far away for this one. This should be done on the advice of the medical community and qualified professionals, not some scheming politician trying to score some votes.
Did you know that Oregon has declared euthanasia legal in certain circumstances, namely terminally ill people? GWB tried to get it overturned in 2005 and failed.
So back to the main topic... should Latimer be lauded for being a pioneer in euthanizing his terminally ill child? No. Should he be rotting in a jail cell for something that more and more advanced liberal democracies are finding acceptable and taking space that belongs to real criminals? No.