Euthanasia is undoubtedly an issue that plagues the minds of those living withchildren or adults who are severely disabled. Rarely is one found to have a neutral’ outlook upon it; that is, a side must be chosen, for or against. It istoo delicate a topic to be in the middle’ about. Over the years, casesinvolving euthanasia have caused massive controversies as to whether or not itis feasible to take the life of another human being in order to put them out oftheir misery’.
One of the strong questions raised in my mind is: Does the killerreally want to put the victim out of their misery? Or is it the killer who isunder the extreme pressures of living with the victim, and is it their ownlifestyle that they are truly fed up with?In the Robert Latimer case, as in many other cases of euthanasia, it can neverbe proven whether or not Latimer killed his young daughter Tracy to save’ her,or to save himself. While I have never experienced living with someone who isseverely disabled, I have had the chance to discuss the issue with many friendsand associates. From what I have learned, it is, indeed, an extremely toughmatter to deal with. While no-one I have spoken to has been suicidal over thematter, they have seen the true pain and misery that some severely disabledindividuals are forced to deal with every day of their lives.
Still, many agreewith myself on the point that a human life is just that, a human life; and thateveryone alive has the right to live, no matter whether or not it is undertougher circumstances than another person. Nobody has the right to take the lifeof another person, and technically, the law states that nobody has the right totake their own life as well. A severely disabled person may have to deal with much pain in their lives, butthey are entitled to the right of simply enjoying being alive, and denying themthat right would be an infringement upon their freedom. Latimer should havetaken the law into deeper consideration before taking his daughters life. He mayhave seen the suffering that she went through, but it is evident that he hadsome sort of strange love for his daughter. Indeed, he did want what was best’for Tracy, but possibly what he was after was what he thought was best.
Hevalued her rights as his daughter, unfortunately he did not value her rights asa human being. As euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues in today’s society, upthere with abortion and the legalization of marijuana, there is a close 50/50opinion base on the topic. Thus, it would seem either extremely difficult for ajury to make a reasonable call on whether or not Latimer should have been guilty. As stated in a Toronto Star article from November 19, 1994, “to acquit himwouldhave put all disabled people in Canadaat rise of being killed by other who feltthey would be better off dead”. This raises an interesting point: wouldcompletely unnecessary murders take place if euthanasia were legalized? Likely.
A killer with a good defence would attempt to prove that they killed a disabledperson to put them out of their misery, when indeed they may have had completelydifferent, perhaps personal reasons to murder the individual. Our system of lawsis right in finding that to legalize euthanasia would far a massive risk uponthe elderly, sick, and disabled of our society. This is a risk for which a lawshould not have to take blame for, and changing this law would only encouragethat. As for Latimer’s sentence; this raises the ever-controversial question of howcan you put a price on a person’s life?’. Will ten years in prison change theway Latimer feels about his actions? No is the most likely answer to thequestion, as Latimer clearly stated “I still feel what I did was right”.
So whatgood is there in putting Latimer away for ten years’should the sentence be aharsher one? Possibly, euthanasia should be considered cold-blooded first-degreestyle murder, with a full life sentence without parole. I feel that taking thelife of another human is cold-blooded, no matter how you look at it; thus, thesentence should be that of a greater extent than the one that Latimer received. In speaking with my parents about this issue, the term “doctor assisted suicide”was mentioned several times. I felt from where I stand, that it was my duty tomake it clear that there is quite a difference between “doctor assisted suicide”and the Latimer case. I feel that when a person clearly states that they wish tobe killed peacefully with the help of a professional is an enormously differentmatter from a case like Robert Latimer’s, in which Latimer took it upon himselfto make the judgment call on his daughter Tracy’s life, and decided himself,that she wished to die.
He did not consider Tracy’s outlook on the situation. Indeed, she was unable to communicate with him, and could not let him know howshe felt, but I feel that this in no way gave Latimer the right to decide forhimself that she wished to die. It is said that many doctors have “played God” in committing doctor assistedsuicides; I believe that Robert Latimer attempted to “play God” when he took hisdaughters life into his own hands and started making decisions on her behalf. While I am in now way recommending suicide, it may have been a better route forRobert Latimer in his situation. If he had so much rage for the love of hisdaughter, and it had to be taken out via murder, I feel it would have beenbetter if he had taken his own life, as opposed to taking the life of Tracy, whowas simply an innocent girl with a problem beyond her own control. Category: Law
