Latimer vs. Kong

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Thunderball ... I pretty much agree with everything you say, particularly with regards to Latimer's case being a political case rather than a legal case. It also royally cheeses me that my tax dollars are being spent to keep Latimer in jail while letting Homolka and the like walk. Friggin' special interest groups suck rocks.

I must add a comment about euthanasia. It may be illegal, but it's not too difficult to practice. It's not that hard to find a sympathetic, obliging, anonymous medical practitioner to assist anyone who wants to go this route. Therefore, it's still a moral issue in my mind. If I had a family member dying and in extreme pain, it's something I'd have to consider. My only wish would be that the family member is in a sound enough mental state to participate in the decision. I guess that's the aspect of Latimer's case that muddifies things for me ... his daughter wasn't in a state where she could participate in the decision. Maybe that's just being a bit cowardly though, looking for an out to absolve myself of blame for having to make the decision.

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?

[Thunderball]

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.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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.

He could be out if he showed remorse.

I was reading an article the other day wherein his sister said that her brother would not lie to get out of prison. He had no problem lying after he killed her.

Why does he have a problem now?

It would have added validity to his act. To me, if you believe that strongly in something, you stand up for what you believe regardless of the consequences.

I suppose one could say that is what he is doing now. By not showing remorse, he will stay where he is unless he's offered clemency. When he murdered his daughter, he was not so forthright.

That said i empathize with the Latimers, but I would have had far more respect for the man had he have stood up and been a man about what he had done.

He didn't do that. He tried to hide it.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Dion

He could be out if he showed remorse.

I was reading an article the other day wherein his sister said that her brother would not lie to get out of prison. He had no problem lying after he killed her.

Why does he have a problem now?

It would have added validity to his act. To me, if you believe that strongly in something, you stand up for what you believe regardless of the consequences.

I suppose one could say that is what he is doing now. By not showing remorse, he will stay where he is unless he's offered clemency. When he murdered his daughter, he was not so forthright.

That said i empathize with the Latimers, but I would have had far more respect for the man had he have stood up and been a man about what he had done.

He didn't do that. He tried to hide it.

I agree actually. Of course, if he had remorse for the act now, he would essentially be admitting that he made a mistake. Though you have to admit the whole situation smacks of a desperate man resorting to desperate measures and not being sure how to go from there. He most likely lied because he knew people wouldn't understand what he went through.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I agree actually. Of course, if he had remorse for the act now, he would essentially be admitting that he made a mistake. Though you have to admit the whole situation smacks of a desperate man resorting to desperate measures and not being sure how to go from there. He most likely lied because he knew people wouldn't understand what he went through.

I think he lied because he didn't want to go to prison.

If Robert Latimer stood up and said, "I ended her life because I couldn't stand to see her in pain anymore!", people might have understood IMO. Sticking her in a truck, gassing her to death, then pretending she died of natural causes won't get you any sympathy.

If Latimer felt he was doing the right thing, why did he stick his
daughter in a truck with a hose attached to the exhaust - the other
end directed towards the inside of the truck, wait for her to die,
then carry her to her bed, tuck her in as though she died of natural
causes and why did he lie after she was found dead?

If he felt that she was living in extreme pain and that he was doing
the right thing, he should have been a man about it. He should have
taken responsiblity.

If we were to give him parole before his time is served, the message
sent to those who have to care for the disabled, is one of acceptance.

Tracy couldn't speak for herself. The person she trusted the most,
killed her.

I really struggle with this one as I volunteer with people who have disabilities..

[fredr123]

Follow up: Latimer released on day parole following appeal. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

The National Parole Board refused to give Latimer day parole in a Dec. 5 hearing, after he again refused to admit any guilt in the killing. But that decision has been overturned by the National Parole Board Appeal Division.


"They concluded that Mr. Latimer doesn't represent a threat to society and he doesn't present a serious risk of re-offending," said Latimer's lawyer, Jason Gratl.