Don’t trust me, trust someone who knows better than me. Mark Pickup, author of the linked blog, is in a wheelchair.
When you can discuss your desire to kill euthanize your children publicly on mainstream TV as he references, I’d agree that we have a problem on our hands.
by 
I submitted this to Mark’s blog.
I am pro-life and anti-euthanasia but I don’t agree with you about Latimer. There are always exceptions. My experience with the medical system has shown me that there are times, rare but they do happen, when a situation really is dire. I have never seen any evidence that Latimer seethed with resentment of his daughter. She was in pain and was going to be in more and more pain and she couldn’t take pain meds because of the anti-convulsants she was on. How long is a parent supposed to live with that? They could have put Tracey in a home and left her there but in homes she didn’t thrive, so they could have chosen slow death for her and looked away. And that would have been morally alright? Latimer is an inarticulate, not-Godless Saskatchewan farmer who doesn’t expect or ask a nanny state to solve his problems for him. I just can’t see what he did as evil. I can see killing a child in pain who faces more and more pain out of love.
I don’t see discussing this as being wrong either. We need to discern the difference between someone in a situation where there is no answer and the other woman who simply doesn’t want her children to live as they are -not in pain.
Having said that, I do agree that this is not a good time to be disabled. Surely it doesn’t do the disabled any service to cover over the really hard questions
I see what Latimer did as evil.
I can well believe that it is agonizing to watch your child suffer, but if we begin to argue that in exceptional situations the ill and/or disabled are better off dead, where does that end? For example, there must be extreme suffering in parenting a child who is physically able but who has an acute mental illness. If that had been Tracy’s condition, would there have been this kind of support for her father’s decision to kill her?
Mary Ann:
It’s never wrong to discuss something, and I believe it is always good to hash out ideas.
However, chances are, were you given the opportunity to kill your own daughter, you wouldn’t be able to do it. Tracey Latimer was de-humanized in the media. I once listened to a presentation by a disability-rights activist who emphasized that which made Tracey fully human. She liked pink nail polish. She liked spaghetti. She loved hanging out with her siblings.
Imagine those very human, little girl things and now picture yourself taking her out to a garage and leaving her in a car to fill with poison. Now let’s say she couldn’t express any preference at all. Let’s she didn’t notice pink nail polish, couldn’t eat, and didn’t recognize family. I don’t think it would change a thing.
Being pro-life is based on a principle. It doesn’t matter whether the person killing is apparently God-fearing or not; plenty of wrong has been done in God’s name. What matters here is that there was a life to protect, and instead of doing so, her father killed her. We’ll never know her thoughts on the matter; she wasn’t able to express them. But fathers shouldn’t kill their kids, even very sick ones.
I follow this blog regularly:
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/emilyy
It’s about a loving mother making every accomodation for her severely disabled daughter. It’s about the cherishing of every day–whether bad or good. It’s about all the things that this girl named Emily teaches all those around her. Her mother is peace-filled, courageous and devoted. Try reading it for a couple of days, maybe a week or two and then get back to me on whether Latimer was right.
There is something about the Latimer case that haunts me still.
When Robert Latimer killed Tracey, the family initially told the authorities that Tracey had died in one of her attacks or spells. The authorities believed them, and the story would have ended there…
But Latimer felt the need to confess. So he went to the police, and then the rest is history. He was charged with murder (2nd degree, but murder nonetheless) and served 15 years.
I’m going to play the psychologist here (and keep in mind that my credentials are that I have a keyboard and fingers to type) and say that someone who is at peace with what they have done doesn’t go and confess.
And the thought struck me at the time that there might be more than a few priests and lawyers in this country who have heard similar stories over the years. I don’t by any means think that this is common, but I’m sure it has happened before and will happen again.
I still think this would have been better dealt with within the Latimer family. But it also strikes me that families aren’t strong enough these days to deal with these kinds of issues. Maybe they never were. But involving the State, and the media, and the justice system in this case made the situation far, far worse.
Latimer certainly wasn’t right to kill his daughter. But his family suffered twice when they lost that man (who, despite his failings, was for the most part a good husband and father) for fifteen years.
A man at peace with what he’s done generally doesn’t lie to cover it up in the first place.
Where a murder has been committed, it is entirely appropriate to involve the justice system. In what sense could it have been “better dealt with within the Latimer family”?
Well, look at what the outcome has been when the justice system was involved, and the case widely published: Robert Latimer has been turned into a folk hero, and there are many, many people out there who think that he has been gravely wronged by the justice system. I don’t think that he was gravely wronged, but it worries me, the hero status that this guy has gotten.
I don’t think that justice could possibly be served in this case.
In my opinion, the Canadian justice system should be concerned solely with keeping dangerous offenders off the streets, and exacting redress for crimes committed.
The problem with that, is that Robert Latimer has taken a life. Short of giving his own life in return (and I am NOT in favour of the death penalty) there is NOTHING he can do that will possibly pay for his crime. He’s got an unpayable debt to society: some of that debt will have to be forgiven. The question is, as a society, how much are we willing to forgive.
I think that if the family of his victim is willing to forgive him, then maybe the rest of us should too.
The fact that many people regard him as a hero only means that many people don’t acknowledge the inherent dignity of human life. I agree that this is very discouraging, but for our legal system to have let him off would only have reinforced the idea that Tracy’s life was worth less than yours or mine.
Given the biases of the media generally, I’ve no doubt Latimer’s “hero” status was helped along by some of the reportage. However, I don’t see how a case like this could not have been publicized, unless it had taken place in a state where the media is under very strict control by the government. (And those types of states don’t tend to care much for the weak and vulnerable.)
Receiving forgiveness is also not the same as making reparation. Robert Latimer can receive forgiveness for his crime, if he admits he did evil and is truly sorry for it. But he still had to make up for it in some way, even though nothing he can do – even giving his own life – can restore Tracy’s life to her. The justice system should indeed “exact redress for crimes committed” – that includes not letting the crime of murder go unpunished.