|
Hundreds hold vigil outside Latimer's prison
This has really been a tough one to rationalize on because we cannot condone killing someone.
On the other hand when it is blatantly criminal to force someone to endure pain and suffering knowing there is no help, then I cannot condone that either.
It is after much thought that I feel that Latimer should be penalized for breaking the law, but must be shown compassion, for the reason he did it. If you
know of anyone pressing for a shortening of his sentence please pass it on. Even if he were to serve it on his farm it would undo a great injustice.
Thank you
David J. McCourt
Have the judicial system gone collectively insane? It is
preposterous, wrong, and plainly stupid to keep Robert Latimer in a maximum
security prison. He is not a danger to anyone! Isn't there any room for
reason? Every case is slightly different and requires individual
consideration. Wasn't there anybody in the judicial system to clearly see
the difference between his case and that of let's say, Homolka's?
Aside from the ethical issues at work I register my total disgust with
the system that have gone unreasonable. Let Latimer serve the time at his
farm!
Chris Wojnarowicz
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
I think this whole situation stinks of hypocracy. If the overdose of
carbon dioxide was given by a doctor then we wouldn't take a second glance
at it.
These pious individuals who judge Robert Latimer have no rights in his
family and his decisions he had to make all his life and his daughters
life.
Robert being of sound mind and body did this deed out of love and this
has been proven in court.He has lost someone he loves dearly, this is shown
by his willingness to take whatever comes from his actions and that stands
for courage.
He should be pardoned and the judges who convicted him will get theirs in
the after life, they cannot say they were just doing their jobs when it
comes time to meet the maker.
The advocates for life do not have any say in Robert's life or his
family. True we cannot just kill at will but who gets the final decision and
in this case it is clear cut: Robert Latimer and his wife, the person who brought this little girl into the world.
Thank You
Randy Asselstine
Windsor, Ontario
I strongly believe that Latimer should be freed and home with
his family. What he did, he did with compassion for his poor daughter, and
no one ever could make me believe that of the hundreds of children in these
sad predicaments, the parent has not wished he/she could do the same
thing.
What kind of life did this poor child have, and don't try to make me
believe she was happy, good grief people, wake up! I personally believe
the poor child is in a better place now and not suffering anymore, as her
parents now have to because the courts do not dare release him in fear of
an avalance of the same thing happening! God speed Mr. & Mrs. Latimer, you
are wonderful people.
Tunie Grant
Grindrod, British Columbia
The family of Tracy Latimer would have the best indication of what she
was going through. Robert Latimer has the support of the people who
lived with Tracy everyday, his family. They don't appear to be deviants
that would see murder as a way of convenience.
Robert Latimer must have known the consequences his actions. And still he was compelled to end
Tracy's tragic suffering. This has nothing to do with the rights of the
disabled. This is about humanity at its most challenged.
It's about realizing that laws are not black and white. We live in a society where
serial rapist and pedophiles can walk the streets after a slap on the
wrists, yet someone who puts compassion above rules has to endure
excessive punishment. It really stinks.
Leslee Fredericks
I can't believe that this man is serving time in a Canadian prison for an act of compassion. We who have not walked in his shoes for all of the years he watched his daughter suffer cannot judge this man. I believe he was let down badly by the medical profession who did not control Tracey's pain. He must be allowed to serve his term on parole. He is no danger to anyone.
Dorothy Whittome
Mr. Latimer is guilty yes, but of what? Mercy? or Murder? To each
their own to decide and then to their own conscience. The fate will toil
at thier own emotions.
What would life be like to be in Tracy's position? You set yourself there. And tell me the enjoyment you would receive. Yes there could be days of pleasure for her but then there
were many days of displeasure. Tracy could not make a choice but Robert
did.Where did his decision come from? No one knows for sure,until
they have to be faced with a fact like that. If you were injured in a
car accident so badly you would be brain damaged and would never be able
to even understand what's going on would you want to live? Or would you
rather the plug be pulled?
Tim
Victorville, California
I believe that the public support of Robert Latimer is not based on an
accurate understanding of events surrounding Tracy's death, but comes out
of our society's unfounded and catastrophized dread of disability.
Tracy had cerebral palsy and a mental disability. Although this meant her
activities were severely limited, it did not mean she lived a life of
unremitting suffering and emptiness. The communication book sent between
the Latimer home and the Development Centre shows that Tracy was often
cheerful and happy and that she enjoyed a variety of experiences.
There was no question that Tracy experienced pain. However, no one can say
with certainty whether the degree of pain was truly excruciating or whether
this was exaggerated by Robert Latimer and sensationalized by the
media. What we do know is that this pain could have been significantly
reduced if Tracy had received a feeding tube which would have enabled her
to ingest adequate pain medication and nutrition. It was the Latimers who
refused this operation due to Robert's self-confessed phobic aversion to
needles and other forms of medical treatment. As a result, Tracy was
subjected to more pain than was necessary.
No, the public's support of Robert Latimer is founded upon the perception
that life with a disability is a fate worse than death. I have cerebral
palsy. This means that it usually takes me more time and energy to
accomplish most things; it does not mean I live a life of unmitigated
suffering. Not only is this perception inaccurate, It also jeopardizes the
lives of disabled Canadians.
Prior to Robert Latimer's court case, I had always assumed that if I were
seriously injured (in a car accident, for example) or had an urgent medical
emergency, that doctors and other health professionals would devote the
same amount of energy and commitment to save my life as they would for a
non-disabled person. With the public's reaction to Tracy's death came the
realization that this was not necessarily the case.
What frightens me is the very real possibility that I could be taken to a
hospital with a serious injury or condition which left me unconscious and
the attending doctor could very well be someone who saw life with a
disability as a tragic hardship. As a result, he or she might be a bit
more ambivalent about whether all attempts should be made to save my life.
Some might see this as a melodramatic over-reaction, claiming that my
disability is not as severe as Tracy's and it's comparing apples and
oranges. But the difference in severity of our disabilities is only
apparent if I can talk (or communicate in some way) or if I can move. In a
state of unconsciousness, Tracy and I are indistinguishable.
How do I explain the terror of feeling vulnerable at this level? Let me
only say that I have destroyed my organ donation card and have seriously
considered getting Medical Alert Bracelet that reads: "I have a wonderful
life with a family and many friends who love me. Please make every attempt
to save my life."
It is this terror which is at the core of my support of the court's
decision to sentence Robert Latimer to 10 years in jail. It's not because
I think he should "pay" for what he did; I don't think imprisoning Robert
Latimer will cause him to reconsider the morality of his actions. And I
don't think he represents a danger to society.
I support the court's decision because if Robert Latimer had received a
reduced sentence, it would have been a clear message to families and
health professionals that they could feel justified and legally safe in
prematurely ending the life of a disabled person.
The thought of living in such a society, quite frankly, scares the hell out
of me.
Norman Kunc
Nanaimo, British Columbia
Sheesh, now they are putting out ribbons for this guy.
I know this isn't like some murder in the park, and yes I'm sure he loved his daughter, but here is my problem with this case. Latimer assumed Tracy was his property, and that he had the right to
do with her as he pleased. Supposed some guy went around killing other people's handicapped kids because he couldn't bear to see them suffer. If the parents were upset, should the judge just tell
them "well... they didn't have a life anyway... he did you a big favour."
Most of you who are now supporting Latimer would probably scream bloody murder. The reason... because you think a parent should have total control over their child's life. Well, the reason we
have created a civilization is so that we may better represent the rights of the individuals. Sometimes this challenges the views of religion, and sometimes it goes even further to challenge the most
basic social group we have, which is the sanctity of the family. Too bad. I like this kind of protection, and I believe it should be extended to everyone. That means Latimer belongs in prison for his
actions, because he had no right to make that decision for Tracy.
One more thing... if Latimer truly was trying to do the best for Tracy, why didn't he use a different method for killing her instead of stuffing her in a cold pick-up truck? Perhaps he could have held
a pillow over her mouth, and looked into her eyes as she died. Then at the very least he could have seen if was willing to accept his decision, or if she would have reacted with terror, and struggled
against his hand. Then when the judge questioned him about it – if he were willing to be totally honest – he could have told us that she struggled, but that he did it anyway. If you knew that she
wanted to live, but he killed her anyway, would you still support him?
John Paolozzi
I think it is the medical doctors who should be in jail for the inhumane
torture of Tracy Latimer. How could we as a Canadian society stand by
and let people be tortured in this way? If the medical system would
quit trying to play God, Robert Latimer would not have had to handle
this situation in the way that he had. God would have done it for
him. He was the only one who showed mercy and love for his
daughter. I can only hope the doctors and nurses of our land will learn
a most valuable lesson from this.
Laureen Paradis
Storthoaks, Saskatchewan
A do not agree with the decision for Latimer. If you have ever had a handicapped child you would understand his decision. I had a child when I was 18 and the doctors hurt my baby and he became very handicapped. I was lucky he did not live past 13 months. It was not easy to raise him. I even went to a home for handicapped people, Saint Ammount Centre in Winnipeg. The children just live with no life.
Loosing a child at any age is hard and this family has to live with the lose of their child and now you take him away from his wife. She already lost one person, this could send her to a mental institute and who do you blame then?
It was not an easy decision and this man made it to help his daughter not suffer. Try living in his shoes for a while. Maybe he deserves some time but not a long time, don't you think he is grieving over her daily? it would have been easier when she was little but he loved her so much he did what he could for her and then when her pain became worse he made a decision.
I am only 35 and cracked my spine a few years ago and I am disabled in many ways. My husband of 14 years has got a concusion lst October and then lost his short term memory. He is like a child and I am at the end of my energy for taking care of him. He is not as bad as this little girl but if I am exhausted, how did this father feel?
Alyce Sandford
Sheffield, New Brunswick
I want to make a comment about the Latimer case. I know some of
this family and I do not feel that the court's decision was fair. Robert
Latimer did what he thought was best for his child. Her death was not
malicious or cruel. He could not sit by and watch his daughter suffer any
more. He has a wife and children that need him. What is going to happen
to them, and is it fair? I think what has happened here is unfair.
Jillian Wells
Dauphin, Manitoba
I am the mother of two special needs children aged 10 years and
6 years. Although I feel that I could never do what Robert Latimer did, it is a
terrible time we live in when the courts can think they know what our lives
are like and those of our children. No matter what kinds of support you
have in place for your child (if any) you never have more than two hours
sleep straight each night. You carry cell phones with you when your child
is at school, that's when they can go to school and are not out because of
repeated illness. You never go out and when you finally get to go out it's
for two hours once every 6 months and you can't enjoy it because your worried
if it will end with you going to the emergancy room to meet your child.
Your marriage is always at stress, because of course you're stressed and then
other family members miss out on everything. You yell at everyone because
you are your child's only advocate, but no one's listening. If there is a
Judge who can honestly they live their lives like that (not that they know someone who does) let them
be the first to throw the stone! I know it took a lot of courage for him to
do that and love.
Paulette Pollard
Hamilton, Ontario
I have yet to reply to questions posed by the media on current
news until now. I have been following this case since it occured and a lot has happened
since then to affect my opinion on this matter.
I was raised by my grandparents and they have since passed on. With
their guidance and understanding they taught me a lot.
My Grandmother was a crippled woman with chronic arthritis. I cared for
her the last 7 years of her life. I helped her with everything. I used to
hear her say that she "wished she was dead." I used to wish she died also
because of the terrible pain she endured the last few years of her life.
She did eventually pass away. I was sad on the outside and happy in the
inside because she was free of pain now.
I lost a baby girl to lukemia just recently and that is no easy thing for
a parent to go through. There was no hope for her, all we could do was
watch her die. I wanted her to die because she was just a baby and this
was true injustice for my daughter to have this deadly disease. She did
eventually die.
Mr. Latimer I feel went to the extreme the way that he put his daughter
to death. To watch a child suffer with no hope of recovery or hope of pain
free days, you begin to ask yourself some hard questions. What he did to
his daughter is unfortunate, but know this, Tracy is pain free.
I feel for Mr. Latimer and his family, I do not endorse his actions, but
you have to be in his shoes to fully comprehend the magnitude of his
actions by weighing the options that he was faced with. There is no easy
answer, and there never will be. I say this as a parent who lost a child
in cruel circumstances. Mr. Latimer gets to serve ten years for his
actions. I think he has served his time and suffered enough. A parent
suffers when their child suffers. 10 YEARS.
That's not fair, a person who gets drunk and kills somebody gets less
than this. Where is the justice? As for Tracy, let her rest in eternal
peace and let Mr. Latimer have peace of mind. He will suffer for the rest
of his life, no amount of prison time served will be enough to make it
right.
Let him be and may God forgive him. I have.
Morris Pelletier
Sandy Bay, Manitoba
In your January 18 newscast you reported that the Supreme Court
upheld the Latimer judgement basically because it (murder) was the worse
offence in the criminal code than to protect the weak and vulnerable. I can
agree with this point but can only wonder why at the same time our society
systematically protects and condons the right to end human life as long as
the being has not left the womb. Surely some limits are appropriate here!
A rather sad reflection of the selective state of justice isn't it?
Peter Krygsman
Guelph, Ontario
I find this ruling today a huge miscarriage of justice. The
Canadian Public should band together and demand the pardon Latimer requires
for complete freedom.
Yvonne Stelzer
Okanagan, British Columbia
I feel very upset and sorry for Mr.Latimer and his family. I feel
that they have been let down by the justice system, and dragged through the
dirt. How can anybody know what the latimer family was going through? If you
had a dog that was cripple or suffering in any other way and you did
nothing but watch it suffer for many years you would find yourself in a lot
of trouble. So Mr. Latimer I would like for you to hold your head up high
and don't let anyone put you down, you did what you felt was in the best
interest of your child and for your family. I don't feel that you should be
compared to Susan Smith as I feel that she was only thinking of herself. You
are too good to even be compared in anyway to her. Be strong and hopefully
someone can convince the justice department that they have made a terrible
mistake.
Priscilla Burbridge
Epworth, Newfoundland
There are three issues here. (1) the love and compassion shown by a sensitive father (2) the law and (3) knowingly breaking the law.
Mr. Latimer sacrificed his freedom in order to free his daughter from the indignity of pain and suffering. I would have acted accordingly if I wore his moccasins.
I believe the mercy killing was premeditated and calculated. The law has been served. The daughter has been served.
Had I been the Supreme Court of Canada, I would have changed Mr. Latimer's sentence to ten years of community work. Jail time is a waste for this courageous man. Community service would be productive.
Murray Katzman
Toronto, Ontario
I feel this family has suffered enough. Mr. Latimer felt he was
doing the right thing when Tracy died and if you look at the documentary
they just finished on premature babies being kept alive through excessive
means, it is no different. Allow this loving caring father to go home and
continue raising his family and live in peace knowing his daughter is no
longer suffering. What he did is no worse than when we have to disconnect a
loved one from a life support system, believe me I have been there.
Sandy Youmans
North Bay
I am extremely furious at the recent article on Latimer. It is
so unfare that this poor man has to live with the fact that he was
sentenced for 10 years for committing the innocent crime of euthanasia.
Currently our English class did a debate and an essay on this subject and I
was one of the leaders in saying that yes, euthanasia should be legal in
Canada. Imagine this; You walk in to visit your 98-year-old mother who is
bed-ridden, she lays there as you blabble on about your day, how the kids
are.. not once does she look like she is comprehending what you are saying.
There are tubes down her throat and in her arms. The only sound she makes
is a shriek of pain whenever the nurses turn her on her side to prevent bed
sores. Is this the quality of life we all want? Is this how people want to
spend the rest of their life? Not only is it painfull, but it is
embarressing, you are a vegetable sitting there like a bump on a log. I'm
sure this was how Latimer was feeling when he came home every day to find his daughter racked with pain. He did this
out of love, no other reason but love.
Brianne Nigro
Midland, Ontario
Robert Latimore, in my mind is a true hero. Able to do what he
knows in his heart is right despite the condemation of society. Like all
true heros he must now pay the price for challenging the ignorance of
those around him. Funny how no one seems, or wants to realize, that here is
a man who had to take the life of the person he perhaps loved the most,
because of his love. How can any suffering society can impose on him
compare to that? Shame on us, shame on our legal system, unable to deal
with one of the most basic understandings of existence. Sometimes death is
the reward – and life is the punishment.
John Seedhouse
Victoria, British Columbia
Outrageous.
Mr. Latimer is not a threat to society and is being jailed – again – where
the motive for his actions were nothing more than love and compassion
for a severely suffering child. To subject Mr. Latimer to ten more
years of prison time is an insult to a man who will probably never
"kill" again. This is a farce and the cell that could be occupied by
Mr. Lattimer would be better served by housing a criminal that is a real
tangible threat to society. I encourage concerned citizens to email or
contact Justice Minister Anne McClellan and the Prime Minister as I have
to request formally a parliamentary pardon for a man I believe has
suffered enough... watching his child agonizing.... arriving at the
decision to end her torment... and being dragged through the court system,
constantly reminded of his tormented child. Let's lock up the REAL
criminals.
Sincerely,
M.D. Mike Campbell
Montreal, Quebec
Bravo to Latimer's lawyer for pointing out the absurdity of our
system. A perverted woman who can be involved in the murder of three women,
including her sister, gets a shorter sentence than a courageous man who did
something that many of us would never have the faith and internal fortitude
to do and release his daughter from the torture of her life.
And as for those disability advocates who are celebrating, how dare you!
You didn't live this man's life, you didn't live his daughter's life, you
have no idea what they faced, you lack the inner strength Latimer obviously
has and you should get down on your knees tonight and thank God that you
have never had to face the life he faced, and will now face for at least 10
years.
And as for you politicians, do something smart for a change. Recognize
this man has paid the ultimate penalty, he did it out of love, he's no Paul
Bernardo and he deserves our admiration and help, not condemnation.
Dale Bass
Kamloops, British Columbia
There is no question in my mind that what Robert Latimer did
took great courage and that it was absolutely an act born out of love and
compassion.
This man isn't a killer, he isn't even dangerous and his actions in my
opinion weren't criminal.
Robert Latimer doesn't deserve to be in jail for the compassionate
killing of his severely handicapped daughter.
Sending Robert Latimer to prison won't bring his daughter back. And if
it did, what purpose would that serve considering the gravity of her
condition?
It would be great if the CBC or some other media broadcast company were
to make available a web site for people to petition the house of commons to
release Robert Latimer with a full pardon.
Patrick Liddle
Toronto, Ontario
As a Canadian with cerebral palsy currently studying toward a PhD. at the University of Glasgow, I feel a profound sense of relief and justice concerning the Latimer Supreme Court decision. All people irrespective of ability have
worth, dignity and value.
Nancy Hansen
Whether or not one believes in mercy killing is not the issue. Even if
euthanasia is allowed sometime in the future surely the laws that govern
this will provide protection for the rights of the individual and will
not allow the taking of a life by a father who is too distressed to
cope with what he faces. Mr. Latimer killed his daughter and has
received an appropriate sentence. Perhaps the system failed the
Latimers but Mr. Latimer failed his daughter. He gets a chance at life
in ten years, she never gets a chance.
Sue-Ellen Sanders
This is a sad day for the reputation of Canadian justice.
Today CBC reports a 7-month sentence to a drunk driver for running over and
killing a young woman, and a life-sentence to Robert Latimer for his
compassionate killing of his beloved daughter. A more humane society would
have seen that Tracy was given enough morphine, or other pain relief, so
that she would not have had to suffer so greatly, and so that her father
would not have been placed in such an devastating situation.
Bob Latimer's two crimes were to be too caring and too honest. For God's
sake, will the Prime Minister now show compassion and caring to this loving
Canadian father? The present sentence is vindictive and cruel towards both
Mr Latimer and his family. Have they not already suffered enough?
Alan Clews M.D.
While I am prepared to believe that Robert Latimer did not have selfish motives, the law has no way of proving unselfish motives as a defense. Considering that there has been abuse of the euthanasia law
enacted in the Netherlands – I understand that one women was "euthanised" at her request because she was depressed – our technology and our society are turning the life-force into a commodity that is
producable at one end – IVF, "cloning," etc. – and disposable at the other. While the "disposability" of an ill or dying human being is far from being close to taking an old and ailing dog to the vet to be "put to
sleep," I don't believe that there is a point on the gradient at which we can safely stop. We just can't go there at all.
Alan Devine
Downsview, Ontario
I applaud today's Supreme Court Decision. Mr. Latimer is heading to jail. The place where he should have been. The place where he would have gone right away if he had murdered his non disabled
child. There is no bringing Tracy back; however, justice has now been served.
For the sake of Tracy's memory and for the future of other people with disabilities we need to stop feeling sorry for Mr. Latimer and think about the seriousness of this issue.
It scares me to see the polls that feel that Mr. Latimer should not go to jail. Then we hear the Osgoode Professor who is on the bandwagon for " compassionate homicide. " Talk about a perfectionist
society! Please think about Tracy and the many others who live with intellectual disabilities. Listen to what they have to say. Listen to their advocates. Does this issue not remind people of the injustices
that we have seen in history? Are we that afraid of difference that we think we can start measuring who can be killed and who can't? Then we want to justify it by calling it compassion? Compassion for
whom?
I have had the opportunity to meet and get to know many people who live with varying degrees of disabilities. I'm fortunate to have met these folks, their families and friends;
all of whom have touched my life.
I heard Mr. Latimer's lawyer mention in his statement that he thought the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have helped Mr. Latimer and because they didn't it was greatly unfair. Again what
about Tracy? What about her rights and freedoms? Was death really the only answer for her? Please do we really want to live in a country that thinks it okay to kill some of its citizens? Tracy was a person
like you and I. We all have differences. If we think her murder was okay, what will be next?
Martha Shields
I agree with Latimer's lawyer that it is unfortunate that
Latimer is seving a longer term than Homolka. I do not think, however, that
Latimer's term is excessive. Rather, I think that justice was not done in
Homolka's case. I only can wish that Homolka would be facing a fair
sentence as well. Her escape from justice is no excuse for others to escape
justice.
Greg Falk
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Robert Latimer stops the torture for 1 life and gets 10 years in Jail,
Karla
Homolka tortures 2 lives and gets 12 years. What's wrong with this picture?
Nice country we live in.
G.Huber
Sarnia, Ontario
A new low for Canadian justice. Perhaps we can no longer look
down our noses at the American system of vetting judges through the various
elected houses. Our pre-eminent magistrates need only a Liberal party card
to get the job. It's no wonder that many ordinary Canadians hold the system
in such disdain!
Skip Kutz
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
I think the Supreme Court did the right thing. I only regret that the Court did not put Latimer away for life. "Thou shalt not kill " applies to human beings. Tracy Latimer was a human being. If she were some
kind of a farm animal then Mr. Latimer might have a case. Tracy Latimer deserved protection from all human beings including her father. Once we open the door to this fuzzy thinking about "mercy killing" then
no one will be safe.
The whole demeanour of Latimer, "aw shucks, folks, I was only putting her out of her misery" is disgusting. Tracy was not a lame dog or blind horse or some farm animal. She was a human being. The day
our legal system allows us to treat the infirmed like animals at the SPCA them I will be seeking a new country.
Good for the Supreme Court.
Regards,
David J Murphy
As one who suffers day in and day out with severe chronic pain, I thank God
my family doesn't want me dead. Pain is manageable, even the most severe
pain can be managed. There is no right to die – we have no choice, we will
all die. Certainly, there is no right to be killed. Tracy's life was taken
by the person her life was entrusted to. Had the courts gone the other way,
no one in pain would be safe. Whenever a child is abducted and murdered,
society is outraged. Can we ever forget the mother who drowned her two
sons? It wasn't easy to take care of Tracy, according to her father, that
is why Tracy should have been taken out of her home ALIVE, and placed with
loving caring people who believe all children have the right to proper
treatment, love, and a safe home.
Whoever sympathizes with Latimer, can't
possibly have realized the value of all human life. Many are so afraid that
someday they themselves will have severe pain, or even become disabled,
thus they believe they wouldn't want to live like that. But countless human
beings overcome greater pain, and live productive lives. Even if some
think Tracy didn't live a productive life, that is strictly their opinion,
and we don't kill people because of our opinion.>{?
I don't believe Tracy wanted to die. The photos, all of her smiling, tell
all. Please people, remember this little girl and love her memory. We can
hate disease, but not the human who has it. Robert's crime was cold and
hateful, for murder is the antithesis of love.
Cheryl Eckstein
If they put animals out of their pain and suffering and let the
poor creature die with dignity, shouldn't it be the same with
people?
If I have to have somebody, literaly wipe my arse and blow my nose for
me, I'd sooner be put out of my misery, then live like that.
This ruling on Robert Latimer is based on the damn churches, isn't it?
Mitchell R Mahon
Toronto, Ontario
I applaud the Supreme Court Ruling that justice has been served,
although, I still feel that the sentence is too light. However, if we have
learned anything, we can blame technology because if it were left to mother
nature for Tracy's survival, she may have been put to rest at birth.
Unfortunately, Mr. Latimer and his wife, along with the doctors, made the
decision to sustain life from the beginning. Today is a sad day.
Edward
Little Red Reserve, Saskatchewan
Jailing Mr. Latimer for the "compassionate homicide" of his daughter is
akin to flogging the young Nigerian Teen for becoming pregnant as a
result of having sex forced onto her by her father. Our country
delivered a "diplomatic rebuke" to Nigeria. What will we say about us?
Michael Ardenne
I can't believe Robert Latimer is going to jail for 10 years. I
think that the Supreme Court's ruling is absurd. If ever there was a case
that warranted leniency it was this one. I could argue this one from a
number of angles but their decision is a cop-out.
Ken Dalgarno
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Posted before January 18, 2001
Mr. Latimer is not and cannot be guilty of murder and if he is by some quirk of some law -- the ten-year sentence is not and cannot be equitable. Fact is, Mr. Latimer at this time is labeled as a murderer simply because of the law -- in this land. Had this episode/act of compassion occurred in some advanced European countries, or within the confines of at least one or two states down south, he would not be in the present dilemma.
Mr Latimer was supposedly found guilty by a jury of his own peers. But had they known of the ten-year rule in the sentencing in lieu of the one or so years which, they, the jury, thought more than
enough or known they did not have to render any verdict at all -- he would have been found not guilty, or no verdict would have been rendered. Several Supreme court judges ruled similarly
themselves.
In one the greatest paradoxes of all: Our heads of states roll out the red carpet for other heads of state, and vice versa. We encourage trade, tourism, shake hands, sell them our lumber companies, and
so on; yet there - they practice euthanasia - while here, you would get ten years for doing it. Politicians make or change the laws. Laws change as the country becomes sophisticated and matures. And that is the arena where Mr. Latimer's problem ultimately lies.
Having had two brothers and one sister who spent a total of 48 years in total catatonic hopelessness of hopelessness and agony of agony I am not dispassionate. Save for my youngest sister - when tied to a rocking chair - all never saw anything but the four prison walls of a crib. Except exude contorted torment - none ever said anything. There is no need to describe the catatonic stares, pus, bed sores, smell, pubic hair, messes, diapers, contorted facial expression, skin and bones. But if you want to get an image of my sister, just look at any of Tracy Latimer - for she was near like her, same lazy eye affliction - near everything.
My mother must have had further torment for my sister was a spitting image of the youngest brother who was adored by all the women he met. She died two weeks short of 33... unmercylessly. Not even in death did she get a vestige of dignity; for they proceeded to cut her up, so as to find what she died from; it was probably an act of God - for He Himself - wanted to know why she had not sooner.
Some say they have not been placed on this earth in order to take a life, the other side is this: "Has she, or anyone, been placed on earth to stand idly by and watch interminable terminal suffering?"
My brothers and sister are not alone: Less than 150 feet from where they lived most of their lives, lived a woman who is now 95 years old. She has now been in a semicomatose-like state in a palliative care hospice facility for 10 years! She raised a dozen or so kids, went to church every Sunday - I don't think she has to prove her faith anymore. She is not alone, look around - at least she is out of mind. But even comatose patients go to the bathroom, and so on - do they not?
In this country even had she requested compassion beforehand even in the most public and judiciary avenue, as Sue Rodrigues did, it would be denied. Ten years would be, and will be, the minimum sentence should the expiration process be hastened, as now Mr. Latimer's case is setting the precedent. "Life is sacrosanct." But you may be condemned to live it at times in the most appalling circumstance. We have an expiration date on food, medicine, but not quality of life?
That my brothers and sister would be allowed or forced by the absentia of laws in the land and condemned to spend a total of 48 years in total hopelessness of all hopelessness is total cruelty. This is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore must be unconstitutional. We as a society entrench the right to life - at least once born - we should also entrench the right to die with dignity. There can be but no other morality.
In the Latimer case the problem lies not in Mr. Latimer nor the Supreme Court but with the laws which cannot differentiate murder from some form of natural justice, a minutia of humanity, an act
of compassion, or, the right, to die with dignity.
L Thibodeau
I have read with interest, tinged with sadness in some cases, the
variety of comments on the Robert Latimer case. It has ignited a debate
which has precipitated passion from all sides.
I have long been an advocate for and with people with developmental
disabilities. The very fact that advocacy is still a vital requirement
to retain and sustain any dignity and or rights in the lives of these
citizens is part of this tragedy. Robert Latimer's actions, while
reflecting his personal choice, are a reflection of the larger attitudes
still held towards those who are "different" in our society.
Increasingly, decisions about accessing health care, education, housing
and employment are being made on the basis of eligibility criteria that
are becoming narrower and narrower. We are moving towards a 'survival
of the fittest' ethic once more and trying to justify unethical and
inhuman decisions on whether or not we have the resources to help. Some
of the early debates about Latimer's decision were in fact discussions
about the cost of keeping children with complex disabilities alive as a
justification and validation of his choice!
Many writers to this message board have spoken eloquently about Tracey's
quality of life and the subjectiveness of other's analysis of it. It
seems clear to me that not only did Tracey deserve a greater array of
choices, that were acted on, with regard to her health and wellness but
perhaps also, her family may have needed some intervention to assist
them in finding the supports they so obviously needed. All families
need support to do well. Families where one of the members lives with a
disability need that perhaps most of all.
We cannot let our increasing belief in the virtue of 'independence'
allow us to abandon our responsibilities to children and families and by
extension, provide permission to parents, like Robert Latimer, to make
decisions about his child's life or death, in abstentia from community
concern. Some of this debate is clearly about the value of all persons
to our society. Some of it's just about the quality of our communities
for everyone!
Kim Lyster
Penticton, B.C.
I thought that this was a heartbreaking story right from page one. It's pretty
obvious to me that Mr. Latimer is not some kind of a monster. If there was
ever a case of walk a mile in my shoes it's this one.
The fact that all these handicapped people have jumped (or rolled their
wheelchairs) onto the bandwagon is just a tragic compounding of the horror.
They've turned this whole thing into a discussion about civil rights instead
of addressing it as a discussion about unbearable pain.
Our society has absolutely accepted that it is humane to put an animal out
of its pain. Nice people wouldn't let a dog suffer but apparently nice
people feel differently about humans. It's OK to let them writhe with agony
forever.
The closest that I can come to a judgement on this case is to say that if
any of you see me in a state where I'm in awful pain and have no future
prospects for improvement , I would take it as an act of courage and
kindness if you pulled the plug for me. Do for me the thing that you'd do
for a dog.
Daryl Grant
Victoria, B.C.
People should ask themselves what their view of Robert Latimer's murder of
his daughter Tracy would be if Tracy were not a child identified as having
a severe intellectual disability. She could have had even more pain than
some would have us believe she had, but if she had been able to say,
"Please, Daddy -- don't do this to me", no one would suggest that her
father's sentence should be less than the minimum required by the Criminal
Code.
Even though she did experience pain associated with her physical
disability, the court records (including her mother's own daily journal
entries) show that she also enjoyed many things about her life. The
surgical procedures the Latimers say were "torture and mutilation" are the
same procedures which have brought other people's pain under control and
enabled them to enjoy life.
Maclean's Magazine showed a picture several years ago in which an obviously
delighted Tracy was sitting on her father's lap. To cold-heartedly take
her life and say he did it out of love was a violation of the trust Tracy
placed in Robert Latimer. This makes the seriousness of his crime greater,
not less.
Orville Endicott
The argument that Latimer has used to justify his actions is, in my
opinion,
inexcusable. There is always an alternative in every challenging moment we
encounter in our lives. Mr. Latimer could have chosen a path in which
Tracy's pain
could have been controlled, where she could have been involved in the
community
socially and had home support, all while maintaining her dignity.
I don't claim to know what the Latimer's life was like, but what I do know
is that
taking the life another person is not a justified action. The fact that
this case has been
continually reviewed in many different courts is indicative of the fact that
this is no
longer an issue of whether Latimer murdered his child, but about the quality
of life
Tracy lived based on her disability. If Brayford argues that it is
impossible for us to
pass judgment on Latimer's life, then we cannot judge Tracy's life either.
Tracy's life was not in jeopardy, she did not have a terminal illness.
Cerebral Palsy is
not a life threatening disability. Thus, his action cannot be considered
euthanasia or
mercy killing. Yes, she was in pain, but pain is a natural part of life.
As a society,
we can no longer be afraid to deal with the pain of others.
No one has the right to decide the value of another persons life. Tracy's
life was her
own, not her parents, her friends or society's.
Beth Morgan
Hamilton, Ont.
I feel very strongly that Mr. Latimer should serve the manditory 10 year minimum. He committed murder. No parent has the right to decide to kill a child. If Tracy had not had a disabiltiy, there would be no question of his guilt.
As a parent of an adult with significant disabilities, I fear for my daughters life. She is very vulnerable and must rely on caregivers for her well being. If my husband, my children and I were not
there to protect her, I wonder what would happen to her.
I am also amazed that Mr. Latimer himself does not see that he has done something wrong.
This murder was well planned out (12 days in advance) and thought out. There were options that he had and he chose not to consider them. If you look closely at a lot of the pictures of Tracy, you
see a smiling, happy little girl. Her teachers at the developmental centre say she was happy. The staff at the group home where she had just returned said the same things. Laura Latimer's own
words in the school communication book talked about Tracy being happy, enjoying life. What is wrong with this picture? It is only Robert Latimer and his lawyers that are saying that she was in
extreme pain.
The gereral public must look at the facts of the case!!!!!!
We as families of people who are vulnerable must know that society will protect our children when we are no longer able.
Betty Daley!
Mr. Latimer's decision to take his daughter's life is impossible for
anyone not confronted with a similar situation to truly understand.
Yes, we can attempt to understand the horror, the misery and the
unbelievable and never-ending emotional pain of watching a daughter
suffer so much. We can only imagine the feelings that drove him to kill
her.
It was, without doubt, in law, illegal, but the law is certainly
an "ass" most of the time, administered by "donkeys." A lawyer once said
to me that as long as a defendant went through the system, he/she
receives justice. But ask the many convicted innocent people if they
consider they received justice.
Justice in the Latimer case is something that transcends the ability of
a legal system that is more concerned with "form" than justice. Only a
Solomon, and/or God is capable of rightly deciding such a case.
Personally, I believe that enough suffering has permeated the Latimer
family; if anyone doesn't believe that Mr. Latimer has, and will
continue to "pay" for his action, then such a person is emotionally
"dead."
Emotionalism has propelled the issue; the Latimer case is not going to
promote the killing of disabled people; it was a very personal tragedy.
It is time to extend mercy and compassion to him, and allow God to judge
him.
J. Howard
I have been following this coverage somewhat loosely, but it occurs to me that Mr. Latimer's actions were very selfish. "He" couldn't stand to see her suffering and we have heard about the stress and
hardship he and his wife endured. But apparently they were not too stressed with the care of Tracy to have more children. I'm not saying they don't have a right to have a family, but it would make sense that if
you are already stressed to the limit with the care of a disabled child, why would you add to that stress with a newborn, unless, of course, you felt you could handle it.
That being said, the defense that Latimer's state of mind comes into play in this situation, doesn't hold much water. We are being led to believe he was being compassionate, but wouldn't allowing his
daughter the chance to have an operation, which, from what I have read, would have alleviated her pain, and therefore given her the opportunity to experience life and the love of family and friends, have been
the compassionate thing to do.
Are children disposable, when the work gets too hard, get rid of them and then say it was in their best interests. Why didn't he place her in a group home, where she would have had the care she needed, or
better yet, be a man, and live up to his responsibility as a father and care for this child, no matter what the cost.
Alison Shaw
New Brunswick
As I read about this case, I wonder if we are moving from "the right to
die" to "the right to kill."
For three decades in this country, we have
not killed murderers, and yet we somehow find it in our hearts to kill
the weak and the defenceless.
In the days when we did kill murderers,
they had trials in which the evidence for their guilt was rigorously
tested. Have times changed so that I now can I go off and kill someone
without being held accountable for my action? Can I bypass legal
processes designed to protect the innocent? Can I go out and make my
own law and answer only to my own conscience? That some people would
say that I can, raises the question of where all of this will stop, if
ever. Oh Canada!
Michael Watson
I believe that Mr. Latimer took the life of his daughter only because of the terrible pain she was continually suffering with no hope of it
ending. Her disability had absolutely nothing to do with the ending of her life. I think people with disabilities who keep bringing this
up are totally wrong.
Don Hamilton.
I found it of critical importance that Mr. Latimer's lawyer was careful not
to argue that Mr. Latimer had no choice but to kill his daughter. Instead
he was careful to say that the court should accept this defense simply
because Mr. Latimer may have believed it, even if it was wrong and
unreasonable. Under this argument it would not matter how many better
choices existed, it would only matter that Mr. Latimer could not see them.
According to his argument, it does not matter that his daughter probably
could have been helped by surgery, it does not matter that his daughter
probably could have been helped by medication, it does not matter that she
still took some pleasure in some parts of her life. According to this
argument, it only matters that he had given up hope for her and could not
see these things.
If accepted by the Supreme Court, the same argument could be used by the
parent who kills his or her child because he or she honestly believes (no
matter how misguided) that his or her child is better dead than coming out
of the closet, or changing religions, or getting into trouble with the law,
or living with an estranged spouse. Remember, according to Mr. Greenspan,
it does not matter if the belief is false or unreasonable, only that the
parent who kills the child believes it.
Dick Sobsey
Edmonton, Alberta
I really don't care what you want to call it! I think murder spelled any way is still murder. I can' imagine being in that situation, but one thing I know for sure is that once you pull the trigger, there is
no stopping the bullet. Pre-meditated murder is a crime unconditional for anyone.
Taking a HUMAN life, is only for the maker to decide. Relieving the pain, as Mr. Latimer states, is an excuse for him to enjoy life the way he wants to. He does not want the burden to help his
daughter. I find his actions very selfish. If the maker had decided for the Latimers to be blessed with healthy children, he would have done so. For every action, and for whatever reason, life is life.
Who are we to decide WHO LIVES and WHO DIES? There should be no appeal process and the courts should be ashamed to allow it. I am sure Mr. Latimer knew of the consequences when he
performed this senseless act. I am also sure that he should suffer the consequences and punishment directed his way.
People with disabilities have the same rights as the rest of the world. Mr. Latimer is the one with a disability. His daughter never had a say in his actions. Now the justice system is trying to protect
him!
Who was there to protect his daughter?
Please do not allow another murderer to slip through the loopholes!
MURDER is MURDER!
Don Trudeau
Penticton, BC
I feel that I understand Mr Latimer's situation and action . I am not saying that I agree with what he did , but it is a very difficult/stressful/emotional thing to raise a severly handicapped child . My younger brother Richard , now deceased of
natural causes, was stricken with ataxic cerebral palsey due to a doctor's error shortly after birth . I saw and experienced the consequences of this on him and our whole family . He was a wonderful brother and a major influence on all of us . His
handicap , though , required a tremendous amount of time and energy of all of us .
The last few years of his life he was very uncomfortable due to complications arising from his disability . This eventually lead to the burnout and implosion of
the entire family . Do I wish this had never happened to him and us , YES . Do I wish that he was never born , NO . Do I understand what the Latimer family is/was experiencing , I think so . Do I agree with what Mr. Latimer did , no, but I feel
that it is not our place to judge him for what he did .
I believe this father/husband was also burned out when he decided to euthanize his daughter and will live with the memory of what was done for the rest of his life .
Roderick Wheatland
I fail tro see why you always refer to the fact that Tracy had a severe
form of cerebral palsy as the reason why Mr. Latimer should be treated
differently than another murderer.
This man committed murder - he planned
it. He should serve his 10 year sentence. I do not buy his argument that he
was acting out of compassion for his daughter.
He could ask the state for
help with caring for Tracy. He decided to murder to
alleviate his own guilt or pain, and not Tracy's. If he murders any of his
other children, would he get this media attention and sympathy? He would
be sent to prision like any other murderer!!
Andrea Crosbie
To CBC Radio News
June 14, 2000
I was very disappointed to hear your 7 a.m. national broadcast today. After seven years of covering the Latimer case you still exhibited little if any understanding of the disability issues at the heart of this case.
A truly balanced, accurate account of the situation would not have called this a "mercy killing" as you did but an alleged mercy killing. Although Senator Sharon Carstairs has taken up the cause of so-called compassionate or third-degree
homicide, the law has not been changed so for you to call this a mercy killing is to mislead the public into thinking that this is a legitimate defence. It is also inaccurate because the defence is not using this term. It is claiming the preposterous,
unsubstantiated and unprecedented "surrogate suicide."
The facts of the case also do not support a claim of mercy. Surely Canadians have not reached the point of supporting the "mercy killing" of children who ride a school bus, go bowling, watch hockey on TV and enjoy visits with relatives.
Tracy did all of this and more. According to her own written notes Laura Latimer was forced to read under cross-examination in 1997, Tracy rode a school bus for at least a week after her father decided to kill her and no more than five days
before he carried out that plan. Either she was not in "constant pain" or her parents were not as compassionate as they claim.
Another care-giver of Tracy's testified that the pain could be relieved by repositioning her. Latimer himself said she had daily (not constant) pain and that she had pain whenever she was moved. It has been his lawyer, Mark Brayford, who
has talked about constant pain but initially he also showed his ignorance of disability by saying that Tracy was in a vegetative state. In Latimer's confession he said he killed her because, "We couldn.t see any more operations & so I put her
out of pain" He seemed to see murder as a preferable alternative to surgery as treatment for her occasional and situational pain.
Latimer cannot claim he had no alternative. He himself rejected all the options handed to him and to Tracy: surgery to relieve her pain, a gastrostomy or feeding tube to ease her eating difficulty and permanent placement in a group home to
relieve Laura's burden after the recent birth of their fourth child. Surgery and feeding tubes are common procedures, not torture, and they help hundreds of similar children across Canada.
This case shows how unacceptable a third degree of homicide would be. As in the Latimer case, the defence of compassionate motives would have to put the victim's body on trial, as the defence did with Tracy Latimer. Disabled victims would
be easily dismissed as better off dead. In short, it would become a popularity contest between the victim and the accused and, if the victim were disabled, the obvious bias against disabled people would rule. The result would be a double standard in
the justice system, not equal justice for all.
The fact that this type of defence pits care-giver against care-recipient is why it is important to speak to disabled people themselves, not just able-bodied care-givers of disabled children. And this is why the Supreme Court ruling is so important
to all disabled Canadians, especially those who are dependent on others for daily care.
Ruth Enns
Sanford, MB
My wife recently died at the young age of 45, from an extremely rare neurological disorder. We watched her erode slowly over a period of several months until she reached the stage that keeping her alive was, obviously, absurd.
Throughout her entire ordeal (which involved excruciating pain) I maintained that I was
not a proponent of euthanasia, even when having to hear her screams echo
throughout the halls. I always felt that the outcome was between her and her maker
and that she would go when she was ready. I know the stress that was put on myself
as care-giver for several years and my sons.
I am not sure of the exact state of Latimer's daughter at the time he made his
decision or the toll it had taken on his family up until that time, but I can certainly
relate to the mental state that he must have been at.
I am still not clear in my mind, even today, if I would have interfered with the process
my wife went through. I know there were times near the very end that I wished I
could have helped end her suffering. There is no clear answer as to if and when a
person should interfere with another person's dying. Every case deserves it's own
merit.
However, I do strongly believe that a person should have the right to die with dignity.
Because of my wife's mental state I will never know her thoughts on this. I do know
that she would never have chosen to put all of us through such anguish.
Rocky Rowcliffe
Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia
I think that Robert Latimer acted out of love for his daughter.
While I do not condone a blanket rule that covers all disabled people, I think each case must be judged on its merits.
The ultimate decision as to allowing a constitutional exception must rest only in the hands of the Supreme Court. They are the highest legal body in our country and we must trust their judgment and decision.
David Williams
Latimer should not be granted any leniency in his sentence. Personally, I think he is very fortunate not to have been convicted for 1st degree murder. Surely the law protects people from being murdered,... even people WITH disabilities.
Denise Wright
Isn't the final paragraph of this story somewhat misleading: "Latimer has
appeared before the Supreme Court before, when the court sided with him,
throwing out a first murder conviction because the Crown interfered with the
jury"?
I think saying "the court sided with him" is problematic. It would be more
accurate to simply say "Latimer has appeared before the Supreme Court before
and it threw out his first murder conviction because the Crown interfered
with the jury." To me, the phrase "sided with him" suggests that the court
ruled in favour of Latimer's actions which, of course, it did not rule on at
that time.
Darrell Buchanan
Stoney Creek, ON
I sympathize with Mr. Latimer when he says that he could not endure the suffering of his loving daughter. However, the law of the land should be respected. If Mr. Latimer loved her daughter so
much, he should not try to evade the punishment for killing her. Did she ask to be killed? In what manner does Mr. Latimer justify his action?
Roger C. de Clerville
Back to Your Space| Your Thoughts
| 
