Robert Latimer, Canadian Murderer of Daughter, Denied Parole
Robert Latimer murdered his 12-year-old-daughter Tracy in 1993 because she was disabled by cerebral palsy. (The picture is of Tracy and her father.) While many Canadians supported Latimer as a loving father who put his daughter out of misery, he was convicted in of second degree murder. His first conviction was overturned on a technicality, and he was convicted again. In 2000 he began a life sentence with no possibility of parole for ten years.
Throughout this time Latimer has remained unrepentant. His defiant attitude seems to have been key in the decision of the Parole Board to deny day parole. From the story:
Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who killed his disabled daughter in 1993, was denied day parole from the minimum-security William Heat Institution outside Victoria on Wednesday afternoon.The three-member parole board told Latimer that they were "struck" that he had failed to develop any insight into his crime during his seven years in prison. "Folks were left the feeling you have not developed the kind of sufficient understanding of your actions," said Kelly-Ann Speck, one of the three members of the National Parole Board panel.
The decision means Latimer will not be able to spend time in the community. According to Evelyn Blair of the National Parole Board, Latimer likely will not have another opportunity at parole for two years.
I am not against mercy, but denying day parole to Latimer is a very good decision. The Latimer case exposed a noxious core of anti-disabled attitudes in Canada, in which many who would have normally considered any parent who killed his child a monster, instead branded him a hero. (If you doubt it, contrast the public attitude toward Susan Smith who murdered her sons around the time of Tracy's murder, with the sympathy extended by many Canadians to Latimer.) Murder is murder. The fact of Tracy's disability did not make her life less worth living--or punishing for its criminal taking. If Robert Latimer had been released it would have sent precisely the wrong message.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:16 PM
26 Comments
26 Comments:
"I am not against mercy..."
One should think twice before saying such a thing, given that Latimer has received no mercy, that I've noticed, for doing the most merciful thing that he could think of to do.
All he HAD to do, most recently, to be granted day parole, was say that he was SORRY for what he did in ending his daughter's life. He could, in other words, have lied, but has stuck to his guns and remained the kind, gentle, honest and pragmatic man he was when his little girl was born in the first place.
I am appalled by the mentality of people who cannot distinguish between the culpability of someone who intentionally murders her own healthy children for the sake of advancing her own chances with a new boyfriend, versus the culpability of a father and family man, who loved his daughter and wanted only to spare her the suffering that anyone in their right mind would spare a horse, or a dog, or, well, a family member.
It should be recognized that when someone is in palliative care, it is common practice on the part of hospitals to administer so much morphine that the breathing reflex is compromised, and the person utlimately dies. It is not (supposedly, but who knows?) painful. The explanation is that although the drugs do hamper breathing, the drugs are necessary to relieve discomfort. This is routinely done to make the dying person "more comfortable", and doesn't usually happen until after family members have been given time to fly in and say their goodbyes.
It is a round-about and pragmatic way, that happens every day, to relieve the suffering of people for whom there is no hope.
Robert Latimer's daughter was not in a terminal condition, and most likely would have lived on for years (although possibly not for as long as Latimer has been imprisoned), having various parts of her body altered and being in continuous pain, without the option of expressing a preference. To insist that she would have preferred to live through that, but wasn't given the chance, is one thing; also, though, she was not given a chance (since she had no ability) to express a preference to be out of her pain, and this is a decision that is routinely made for other patients in hospitals every day.
There is no making any difference to the kind of mind-set that would be happy with this recent decision.
Know, though, that Latimer is a hero to many people, and it's unfortunate that he has become a martyr in Canada, where I'm usually proud to live.
Julia Colterjohn
Mercy is a horrible thing, if it means visiting death on those we pity. Who gave us the right?
Rather than put up with his daughter being disabled, he heroically murdered her. -- This is the closest formulation as possible to your position. Or how about this: Those who are disabled, by virtue of the fact that they make us uncomfortable, are fit for nothing better than to be killed like animals.
If this is mercy, who needs it.
'...versus the culpability of a father and family man, who loved his daughter and wanted only to spare her the suffering that anyone in their right mind would spare a horse, or a dog, or, well, a family member.'
Don't lump me in the same category with your thinking, dude. I wouldn't "spare" my nephews the suffering of being autistic (and one being mentally retarded to boot) if it meant taking their lives. They have fun, enjoy themselves, and are perfectly happy in their own way.
I take great comfort from singer Fred Small's assessment that you, like everyone else, are simply temporarly able-bodied. Eventually, you too will fall into the pit of age and bodily destruction, and it's slow, and there will be times when you think it's better to be dead than anything else, but you will be there the same as the rest of us.
And I take great comfort that at some point everyone feels the pang of terror at the thought of being forgotten, unwanted, a burden on the family, and feeling useless. Hold on to those feelings if you ever remember this little girl and her senseless murder, because at some point when everyone makes you feel empty and hated, you'll know that little girl felt the same way.
And maybe when the fear of death creeps up on you as you contemplate what actually feeling your body shut down, your breathing slow and your whole being struggle to keep alive one moment more, you'll realize that hastening the death of a loved one is the most vile act that a person can commit.
And if, per chance, you find yourself passing away in a loving environment, surrounded by people who don't think you're a bother, and your hopes for what comes next calm you, so that you neither feel unwanted nor needlessly anxious about your death, I hope that you feel a pang of regret on behalf of this child, and a moment to pity her father for driving her into the darkness alone, without any solice or hope or feeling of some special purpose to her life.
I'm just going to keep re-posting the following, until somebody gets and responds to the point I am attempting to make.
Thank you.
Julie
Robert Latimer's daughter was not in a terminal condition, and most likely would have lived on for years (although possibly not for as long as Latimer has been imprisoned), having various parts of her body altered and being in continuous pain, without the option of expressing a preference. To insist that she would have preferred to live through that, but wasn't given the chance, is one thing; also, though, she was not given a chance (since she had no ability) to express a preference to be out of her pain, and this is a decision that is routinely made for other patients in hospitals every day.
Julie, you can post all you want (till Wesley's had enough).
The alterations of various parts of her body that you mention are surgical correction of scoliosis and dislocated hip, right? Is there something else? Because I'm not seeing the horror here.
And what medications were they using to control her pain? Were her doctors aware that she was in such agony that supposedly her life was a burden to her?
Hi there Laura (a sane, nice, voice). I don't know all the medical details. I'd like to know your opinion on whether any medical details would even be relevant. Would the answers to your questions make a difference? If so, how so?
I've taught Biomedical Ethics in universities; it's been a few years. Used to use this story as an example for the students to think about. Mr. Latimer is still in prison and it's been a few years since I taught the course, so it kind of made me jump, to hear on the radio that they wouldn't even let him out for Day Parole, because he wasn't sorry.
What if he was right?
Tracey seemed to be a good example because she (from the information that was available) was a child in pain, pain that couldn't really be alleviated, she was in a situation that, no matter what anyone did, would only get worse. She was killed (but I don't think she was murdered) by her father, who clearly loved her. Can people murder themselves? (I'm sure he would have murdered himself to save HER from suffering, and kind of has.)
It's something to think about, it's important, and it shouldn't be something that creates anger amonst people. We all want the best. It's just something to think about.
For one thing, I find it a bit ironic that people who commit mindless "manslaughter" get a couple of years in jail, but Mr. Latimer, who thought the thing out to the best of his ability, watched his daughter suffer, considered what more she might have to endure, looked at her face every day...and now refuses to "apologize", gets the maximum sentence for "murder".
Not even Day Parole.
I am ashamed of our justice system. I can't wait to see what we do overseas, next.
Julie:
The point you are making is so odious in so many ways, it's hard to unpack it. Let me attempt to do so step by step:
1) You imply that a life that involves suffering may not be worth living. You don't say it isn't, just that the individual ought to have the option to say, for him- or herself, whether death would be preferable. The fact, however, that death is an option at all, places meaning and suffering in a necessarily antipathetic relationship: that is, they exist in a negative ratio to one another. This relationship or ratio, far from being proved, would seem to be disproved by much of human history and experience; in any case, it is up to you to demonstrate that it exists as you believe it does.
2) After making a gesture toward personal autonomy, you negate yourself, and show your hand: it is not autonomy that is desirable, but the eradication of suffering, even at the cost of life. Since Tracy was incapable of "expressing a preference," as you put it, you assume that the rational preference, had she been capable of expressing one, would have been her own death. So much for the wishes of the individual: for you, better that such people be put to sleep -- like dogs.
3) No one is insisting, as you do, that Tracy would have or should have made any decision regarding her extinction. As you say, her condition was not terminal. It is not right that in a civilized society, in which medical and cultural advances make it possible for the disabled to live lives of greater comfort and integration than ever before, that the question should even be raised as to whether they should be killed for their own good.
To take up a point you mentioned in your first post: it is a myth that properly administered pain control leads to a hastened death; see Wesley's post of 1/8/07, "Pain Control Doesn't Kill." Given that fact, there is no good reason even to allow the killing of terminal patients, let alone ones who are merely disabled.
Sentimentality masks itself as compassion, and others die as a result. It's nothing new. Neither is it heroic or self-sacrificing; after all, you're not the one who dies.
Well said, Julie. I too am ashamed of our justice system. But the Globe and Mail is running a poll that asks "Do you agree with the National Parole Board's decision to keep Robert Latimer in prison?", and last I looked the response was running at 87% NO. That's 7 out of 8 who think Latimer should be allowed out. That makes me feel good about the compassionate values of most Canadians.
Well, Julie, when "having various parts of her body altered and being in continuous pain" is a central part of your argument, you shouldn't be surprised at being asked for details. If you can't supply them, perhaps you should come at your argument from a different direction. Because I personally know people who have had surgery for scoliosis and for hip replacement, and they didn't seem to feel that life was not worth living. So what body part alteration, specifically, are you objecting to? And as to continuous pain - there are lots of ways to treat that. Nerve blocks, for instance, which LOTS of people have. Before continuous pain can be considered as a valid argument, it has to be shown that all possibilities of pain control have been exhausted.
Because we are talking life and death here - not institutionalization, or putting a child up for adoption. If you are going to defend Tracy's actual killing with your arguments, we're going to look at them pretty hard.
Aeolus:
Re "compassionate values," see the last paragraph of my previous post. It is not compassionate to say, "Your suffering is intolerable: let me kill you and make it better." No one's being per se is ever a cause of suffering; there is always a more immediate cause. True compassion, rather than taking the easy, totalistic path, attempts to discern and eradicate that cause alone, and not the one who suffers from it. If I suffer, even if you are my mother or father, you have no right to say that my suffering negates the worth of my being. It is not yours to decide.
Involuntary euthanasia is wrong, plain and simple.
Should he be denied parole, even if "remorse-less"? That I am less certain about, in part as I don't think he is a danger to society.
Julie: Thank you for stopping by.
Please read some history about the eugenics movement to see the danger of attitudes such as yours. You confirm all I have written about this case.
In my view, Mr. Latimer put Tracy out of his misery. And even if not, if we can kill our disabled children out of "mercy," none of them is safe.
There are many things to be noted about this case. One is that at his second trial, the jury unanimously recommended that Robert Latimer spend just one year in jail. Some of the jurors have said that if they had known what the mandatory sentence was for second-degree murder (the judge refused to tell them when they asked), they would not have voted to convict him.
Robert Latimer did not kill his daughter because she was disabled. He and his wife, who seems to be fully supportive of him, had cared for Tracy devotedly for many years. He killed Tracy because she was in great pain and the prospect was that her agony would only increase over time. He regarded further operations as nothing more than mutilating Tracy. Details of Tracy's condition can be found at the Robert Latimer website.
A former student of mine has written: "You can argue that Robert Latimer did in fact have Tracy's consent or you can deny that humans are animals just as cows and dogs are. But based on the decision by the [Supreme] Court, we cannot continue to argue that animals who can communicate at or beyond the abilities of a four month old baby, and who enjoy a quality of life at or above that of Tracy's, have no right to withhold their consent to their own death."
Aeolus: That is utterly monstrous.
Aeolus:
The fact that human beings are capable of making the comparison at all disproves the notion that we "are animals just as cows and dogs are." Animals, certainly, but with a qualitative difference. When you are able to find a dog to make that argument, I will concede the point. In the meantime, I will have to agree with Wesley that the reduction of the disabled to the status of mere brutes, with whom we may do as we please, is monstrous -- but, I would add with sorrow, not at all inhuman.
Furthermore, your student's argument relies on the slippery concept of "quality of life." Any time that term comes up, you can depend that someone's about to be killed. Why do you suppose that is?
I found the poll at the Globe and Mail very discouraging.
Cerebral palsy is "suffering"? I have taught special ed, and last year I worked with two students with CP, one of whom had mental retardation, and I can tell you they would have told the first commenter in response to this post where to go.
You have NO right to determine who is "suffering" just because they aren't perfect.
Here's my issue -
Prove to me that death is better than life.
Aeolus, Julianyway, what makes death itself better than life in pain? What do you know about death?
On the one hand, you could say that you're believers in some kind of afterlife. But if you do, then you have to deal with the fact that the majority of world religions and current NDE research suggests that everything that happens in life gets thrown back at you in some kind of judgment.
So even if Tracey might be happy in Heaven right now, if you (as I do) believe in an afterlife, that still leaves her father unrepentant and guity of murder. If you're going to say she's someplace better off, then you have to say that he'll get his when his time comes.
I've read some stories about life reviews in NDE literature. They're not always pretty. And a good chunk of NDEs aren't positive - see P.M. Atwater for details about hellish expriences.
So even if he did her a "favor" by sending her to Heaven early, his own soul is stained and he'll have to deal with that, if you go with that belief.
If, on the other hand, you think there is no afterlife, then prove to me that the total destruction of the conscious mind is superior to living, breathing, walking, talking, and being alive. Why would HellKaiserRyo's heroes all be talking about our right to live as long as we want to if there wasn't a strong feeling that compared to being wiped out eternally, life was a hell of a lot better?
Are you suggesting that turning her, from a viable, living person to inert, dead matter is somehow better than dealing with the pain that's part of living?
Folks, I'm sorry, but everybody believes one way or the other. There's really no middle ground on this issue.
Which means you have to believe one or the other.
So which is it?
And why, given the evidence of either philosophy, is that better than letting her live?
I notice that there's been a significant delay in answering the question I posed earlier. While I admit I wrote it in the middle of the night (I work weird hours, sue me), I've waited and waited - it's now 5:08 pm CST (in Houston, after all, that's 6:08 pm EST), and nobody's replied at all yet.
Most likely this is because everyone else is at work, which is totally and completely logical. After all, not everybody works a 9 to 5 shift, so even if it were 6pm EST, probably not everybody has gotten home yet. In which case I not only can't complain, I'd be silly to do so. In that case, mea culpa in advance.
On the other hand, there's a chance nobody answered because everybody feels like the answer would detract from their feelings towards the little girl's murder. After all, if someone says, "Well, I believe X, BUT even so..." how people react to the "but even so" part depends strongly on how you define X.
So here I go again, to make myself clearer because I wrote the original statement at 11:40 pm last night and probably sounded like an idiot - at least that was my estimation of my own writing.
1) If you are religious and believe in an afterlife, then, while those of us who agree with that philosophy believe that Tracey is happy in Heaven, you cannot honestly say that Tracey is better off dead because her father has placed his soul in jeopardy.
Buddhists and Hindus believe that the goal of life is to stop the cycle of reincarnation - either by unraveling the 'subtle mind' and coming to an end or by joining with God, respectively. By killing Tracey, her father's doomed himself to another life filled with pain and suffering due to the bad karma he racked up.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that there's a personal judgment at death, meaning that Robert Latimer (since he is unrepentent) risks eternal damnation for murdering his child.
Many Wiccans believe that if a man commits a murder, especially in the case of kin-slaying, he will condemn himself to a hell that's at least as viscious as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic version, until he comes to terms with his wrong-doing, and then have to come back to another life to burn off the bad karma he racked up. (My brother and SIL believe this, as do their priest and priestess.)
I don't have as intimate an understanding of religions such as Shinto or the tribal religions of First Nations peoples, so I can't speak of those with any kind of authority, but I do know that the Cherokee hold with a heaven and a hell, rather than reincarnation, and I know that most tribal cultures put high worth on family ties, and condemn kin-slayers.
Finally, I also know that most religions put special emphasis on a person's particular destiny - the idea that God (or the gods, or what have you) put(s) someone on Earth with certain goals in mind, and that interfering with that person's destiny by killing her is an offense against the deity(s) who created her.
Any way you slice it, if you believe that there's an afterlife, there's a pretty good shot that Latimer is going to suffer the penalty for killing his daughter when his own time comes. How, then, if he is going to be judged for this crime by a Higher Authority, is Tracey's death a good thing? Either he's racked up bad karma, or he's offended God, but either way something unpleasant is coming for him. How does this justify him murdering his daughter? Maybe she's not in physical pain anymore, but if she had a purpose for being here (as most people who believe in an afterlife feel all human beings have), then her death was *not* a good thing, and not only did he interfere with her destiny, Latimer condemned himself.
So, if you believe in an afterlife with some kind of judgment, how is Tracey's death better than her life?
2) If you don't believe in God, an afterlife, special destiny, etc., then basically you believe that once she died, Tracey's consciousness disappeared and she became so much decomposing clay. She has ceased to exist. There is nothing left but a shell.
She has gone from organic to inorganic, from viable to dust. According to many atheists, this is why we fear death so - because we know that our minds will go extinct.
Follow the writings of Sartre with his existential nhilism, of Camus and his absurdism, of Nietzsche, of Marx, and you find a classical struggle between existence and non-being. The weight of the horrors of each, especially pitted against each other.
Follow the mode of modern thought - anything HellKaiserRyo posts talks about it - where people are so convinced that our lives currently have no meaning if we must succumb to death - the end of existence - that they will do darn near anything (download your brain to a computer; create cyborg bodies) to keep us alive as long as possible. Look how much research is going into expanding the human lifespan. Why would any of this matter if there wasn't something inherently wrong, or at least percieved wrong, with death?
If you fit into that mode of thinking, then how can you justify killing *anyone* under *any* circumstances when it means the total destruction of the person? We should be doing everything possible to promote the lives of everyone alive for as long as we can, if the soul doesn't survive physical death.
So no matter the camp you're in, there's something negative about murder, even if the girl was "suffering." Given the fact that she had a normal child's mental development, the awareness of a 12-year-old, went to school five days a week on a regular school bus, and was considered for full integration into a mainstream school, plus the fact that her physical ailments could be and were managed with pain medication, I don't think she qualified as a "suffering child."
And at any rate, was her "suffering" with its minor hardships and pains really all that bad compared to death, in either of the above cases?
So my question to you is, given that there's no middle ground - either the mind survives death or it doesn't, you can't really have it halfyway - which do you believe and, given what you believe, how can you justify saying that her death was good in any respect?
The burden of proof is on you to convince me and the rest of the world that being dead is somehow better than being alive.
T. E. Fine: I respect your concern for Tracy. I'll just make a couple of brief comments and that's all from me.
My understanding is that Tracy had the mental capacity of a typical four-month-old child. I'm no medical expert, but according to the Latimer website: "Her pain increased as her body degenerated. However, the only painkiller that could be used was regular Tylenol, a mild drug that gradually loses its effectiveness over use period. Any painkiller stronger than regular Tylenol would have rendered her comotose and in hospital on life support."
If there is a God, then either this God is a vindictive monster who punishes people even when they mistakenly do what they believe to be morally right, or God is a loving parent who understands that even well-meaning people can make mistakes. In the first case, we're all screwed (excuse the language); in the second case, Latimer has nothing to fear provided he did what he honestly thought was right.
Whether or not God exists, we should not fear death so much that we make a fetish of prolonging life well past the point at which it has stopped being a positive experience. A person who insisted on keeping their dog or cat alive in agony would rightly be called a monster. Did Tracy deserve less consideration?
There are a lot of straw man arguments and black and white fallacies in discussions of these issues. It gets annoying.
For example, I don't know of ANYONE who is sympathetic with Latimer, who would advocate killing disabled people JUST because they are disabled in some way. Your cousin who has cerebral palsy and who is completing her doctoral degree, or my neighbour down the street who has lost the use of his legs but is building a new house anyway... NOBODY (so far as I know) is advocating killing THEM. Nobody would have been sympathetic with Latimer if there had been evidence that Tracy was living a meaningful and enjoyable life, even if that life were highly compromised.
The fact that there are lots of people who are dealing with various disabilities who should (of course) not be killed is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand.
In fact, the issue of "killing disabled people" is not the issue at all.
So, it is extremely exasperating to find so many arguments that are supposedly against Latimer's actions that do not even address the situation he was in, the situation that Tracy was in. You can prove to me until you turn blue that it would be wrong to kill your cousin who has cerebral palsy, who is clearly enjoying life. I already agree with THAT. Your argument won't make a whit of difference to my opinion, because it's not relevant to the type of situation at hand.
There are cases, and there are cases. Suppose I'm trapped in a burning car; I'm burning to death, I'm screaming for you to kill me. You have absolutely no way to rescue me. You have a gun. I'm BEGGING you to shoot me.
You stand there watching me for ten minutes as my flesh melts and I scream. You can't shoot me, because of your "respect" for life.
You can't make any kind of judgement as to my "quality of life", because you don't know what it's like to be me! The fact that I'm begging you to shoot me doesn't matter either. After all, I'M not in a position to evaluate MY quality of life, because I'm kind of busy at the moment, burning to death.
It's always wrong to kill another person, QED.
Well, I don't buy that. If you ask me, the burning car situation is closer to Tracy's than the situation of killing somebody just because they happen to be in a wheelchair, but it's the latter types of examples that always come up in these disputes.
Sigh.
Julianyway: First, Tracy was not in unbearable suffering. Doctors testified to that and members of the disability rights community spoke to it. But beyond that, sometimes things really are black and white, right and wrong. Killing your daughter by putting her in a car and turning on the exhaust is wrong. Period. I don't care what the purported motive was. And in case you didn't see it, a lot of polls show widespread support for Robert, which sends understandable chills down the spines of people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. it also sends them down my spine.
No excuses. No justifications. No rationalizations. No mitigation here. Murdering Tracy was dead wrong.
Aeolus -
I have a deep and abiding respect for you for answering my question directly. I myself have the traditional Catholic/Orthodox beliefs concerning God, which is why I *personally* feel that your two statements don't qualify. I respect your right to disagree with me and I am happy that your answer was sensible. Again, I can't agree with you, but I can tell you've thought it out, and I appreciate your honest answer.
In that case, I have to return to an earlier argument - Laitmer and his family had just had another baby and was showing signs of excessive stress. There was evidence, not that he thought he was committing a mercy killing, but that he was trying to get rid of an unwanted burden.
Feminists in my area talk about how unless every woman is recognized by her potential, female mutiliations and abortion/infantacide of female children in places like China and India will turn them into objects to be discarded and abused at the men's will.
I submit that, had Latimer not allowed the pressure of his changing family life to build up into a murderous rage, he could have either found alternative housing for his daughter or worked through his problems, and his child would have had a much better quality of life. By treating Tracey as a burden, and by being supported, his actions undermine the humanity of a group of people no less than anti-female agendas undermine the humanity of women in other countries.
Tracey could have, and should have, been cared for and had her pain regulated, which it could have.
I would be very happy if you could please furnish me with the place where you got the impression that Tracey was in pain all the time. It conflicts with everything I've read online from Not Dead Yet and other activists. I'd like to compare notes.
But I submit that even her pain (which *should* have been managable given the current state of our medical tech) is not enough to excuse her murder, because I see enough evidence that he killed her because she was a burden to him, not because he had made an honest mistake trying to ease her pain.
For myself - I believe in a just but loving God, and I believe in Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory for a reason. God is fair, but he does punish those who refuse to repent, and even those who are repentant but are stained cannot go directly to heaven (hence the Purgatory part). That's my personal belief, I'm not going to argue it with anybody and it doesn't hurt me in any way if anybody disagrees with me - I'm 100% cool with that. I'm mentioning it in direct response to your reply; that's why I don't feel you're correct. But I totally respect your religious opinions. I do feel that we should err on the side of life at all times to be safe, and again, I disagree with you, but I am very happy that you answered me to my face and didn't pull any punches. Thank you.
P.S. - everybody calls me Tabs. Please feel free to do the same.
Julianyway -
Aeolus was honest and direct in answering the question I posed. Aeolus was fair, tackled the question head on, and was blunt with me. He comes off as rather agnostic - death could mean either an afterlife or not - but as he points out, if God is vindictive, then nobody is safe, and if God is loving, then there's nothing to fear, though I admit that I wish he'd elaborated on the "what if there's no afterlife" part of the question. At least he met me face to face on it.
((Aeolus - I hope you're a he! I can't get your picture... no offense is meant if you're not))
I'm rather disappointed that, instead of answering the question, you backed off and started moaning about "straw man" arguments.
I don't think what happens after death is a straw man argument. I think it's very important to the issue, because we still don't know whether she is better off now that she is dead.
Aeolus said, "Whether or not God exists, we should not fear death so much that we make a fetish of prolonging life well past the point at which it has stopped being a positive experience."
Now, as I told him, I disagree with his perspective, but this is an honest, clear-cut answer, and it does tackle the "no afterlife" problem, even if it's not as drawn out as the "afterlife" section was above it.
But I still feel that whether she's better off now that she's dead is of concern, because how long before we *do* start to think your neighbor without legs is "better off dead?" Or any other person, for that matter? How many people in China believe that their daughters are better off dead, just because of their sex? What makes death better than life?
I repeate - the burden of proof is on you to explain to me why you think she's better off dead. You can take one of the two routs I talked about earlier or go an agnostic direction that Aeolus did, and I would be happy with a direct answer in any regard, but I'm very disappointed that you bypassed the entire question.
BTW - Please feel free to call me Tabs; I'm content with a direct conversation.
Tabs, I simply felt that Aeolus pretty much covered everything that I would have to say in response to you.
No one has addressed my "moaning" about straw man arguments, so far as I can tell.
Accusing me of "moaning" is not particularly helpful, either, I might add. If my points are good, then the fact that they were "moaned" should be irrelevant; likewise if my points are NO good.
Julianyway,
I "get" what you are trying to say. What I see as an issue for consideration is this fear that is being expressed regarding opening the way for abuse of people with physical and mental challenges. To take the Latimer case with its particular details that you have touched on, seems to be thought of as a "dangerous" way to think. The presumption is that if Mr. Latimer were to be shown any understanding for what he did, it would be like opening the doors to more "mercy" killings. Where would the line of safety be drawn? This seems to be where the concern is.
I believe that it is not black and white, it is not that murdering children is plain wrong, etc. Ending lives has never been a black and white issue - look at the political minefields of abortion and euthanasia in general. These are issues that require looking into each case in depth. For example, there is much talk about Mr. Latimer's motives, whether he was simply trying to make his life easier, etc.
I find this very disturbing. Unless one had been in his exact shoes, it would be impossible to pinpoint his exact feelings and motivations. I do know from personal experience that experiencing a loved one's disintegration of health and increasing pain causes a grief and despair beyond words. Through all of this I believe that Mr. Latimer has been treated abysmally and even abusively. His grief for his daughter would be so great that to undergo public skewering, being jailed and branded as having done something "monstrous" would be enough to drive him into mental amd emotional breakdown. He and his family have no doubt suffered greatly through all of this. I wonder if he has been offered counselling and the concern that he needs. We are failing ourselves as well as the Latimers by not taking all of this into consideration.
Personally I feel that discussions regarding whether life is better than death, or vice versa, are meaningless. These are things we'll never agree on, with what we all collectively agree upon, which is not much. And it is not up to us to convince anyone of an answer to those questions. Death clearly brings relief to physical suffering. I would as a parent rather see my child go to sleep for the last time peacefully, than continue to painfully experience the loss of body function. I do not have the courage of Mr. Latimer, but I can really identify with his dilemma. What agony he must have been in himself, and still must be in, over this decision that no one can agree on.
I firmly believe that he does not, and never did belong in jail. He has been treated wrongly in that regard. He needed to be with his family and have the resources to handle the incredible grief and despair of what happened to his little daughter's life. It has been a sad tale and that is how I see it.
One more thing - about whether death is better than life - I don't know what happens after death, but I have faced uncertainty about death from serious illness. I can tell you that having a little more time, just to have it, doesn't mean alot to me. I do not want to fall apart in pain, or have my family see me in this state, and if I had a choice, I'd go to sleep peacefully and deliberately, rather than live in agony just to let things play out "naturally." Or to have more time because maybe there's nothing more after death so I should prolong what I have. No, no! That seems crazy to me. No, that's easily said by those not facing it.
By the way, J, thanks for trying to explain. You clearly have some experience in this area. No disrespect intended to anyone else. I just think there's more to this than a "there is no other hand" approach.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home