Yesterday, a Canadian parole board in a prison near Victoria denied day parole to Robert Latimer. Latimer is the Saskatchewan farmer serving a life sentence for the second-degree murder of his 12-year-old disabled daughter back in 1993.
Some facts: Tracy Latimer acquired cerebral palsy from oxygen deprivation at birth. She was unable to walk or talk and had seizures every day, but she could smile, laugh and cry. She went to school each day on a bus, she could communicate likes and dislikes. She recognized the people she loved. Tracy had several surgeries and was scheduled for a fourth on the day of her death. (The back surgery she had to correct scoliosis and the complication afterward of a steel bar migrating in her hip sound identical to my own Harrington rod surgery experiences.)
On October 24, 1993, Robert Latimer placed his daughter, Tracy, in the cab of his pickup truck, connected a hose to the exhaust, ran the hose in the vehicle’s window and gassed his daughter to death. He hid the evidence and lied about her death until an autopsy revealed foul play. Then he confessed.
But he has never expressed remorse, which is why he was denied parole:
The parole board decided the 54-year-old Saskatchewan farmer had not developed any insight into his crime. Latimer insisted during his parole hearing Wednesday that killing Tracy was the right thing to do.
He remained unapologetic and angry at the legal system.
“The laws are not as important as Tracy was,” he said.
“I still feel don’t feel guilty because I still feel it was the best thing to do.”
While there’s always been a frightening and enraging degree of support for Latimer’s actions (which, interestingly, played out while Susan Smith was simultaneously being castigated for the murder of her nondisabled children in the U.S.), much of the fervor has been about the mandatory sentencing that required him to serve at least ten years in prison. The Canadian Supreme Court overturned a lighter sentence that failed to follow sentencing guidelines. He’s currently spent seven years in jail.
In an appeal to his conviction, Latimer contended that he “had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter by virtue of her complete lack of physical and intellectual abilities.”
Grant Mitchell, a lawyer representing disability groups in relation to the case, said yesterday:
“I think it’s really sad that he’s still maintaining that he committed no crime … that killing a member of his family was a private matter that the public had no business getting involved in. And I think it’s particularly concerning that when he was asked by the Parole Board whether he would do the same thing if another member of his family were in distress, he said he wasn’t sure what he would do.”
I agree with Mitchell. More importantly, I agree with the guilty verdict that holds Latimer accountable for murdering his daughter. I am less certain how much time in prison is appropriate, but since Latimer reportedly wished to use his day parole to spend time furthering the cause of euthanasia, I’m content that he remains in jail.
Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade
I believe in assisted suicide because I believe in the right of all rational people to choose to end their own lives in the case of terminal illness or pain without end.
That is not what this was. This sounds like murder, pure and simple, it really infuriates me that his actions have been linked to a political cause I support, and I hope he stays in jail for a long, long time.
—Myca
Ditto.
Euthanasia issues aside, I do have difficulty with the fact that he/his family were able to authorize a series of surgeries for her if it was the case that she was unable to do so herself. I should say that, while I’m personally morally opposed to surgery in general, consensual or not, performing it on someone who has not explicitly given informed consent, no matter what the circumstances, ought to be a criminal offense of high magnitude for the ‘doctor(s)’ involved.
>She was unable to walk or talk *snip*, but she could smile, laugh and cry. *snip* she could communicate likes and dislikes. She recognized the people she loved.
Funny, that sounds exactly like every child between 3 months (or earlier) and 1 year that I know, disability or no disability, including my own kid! “Complete lack of physical and intellectual abilities”?? HARDLY.
It is scary that this “father” couldn’t and still can’t consider the possibility that Tracy had the right to exist at this level. It makes me question his understanding of her and whether he bothered to communicate with her regularly, or left her care to everyone else and wallowed in (self)pity.
I find this really problematic. I’m sure I’m not the only infant who would have suffered major health problems, if not death, had my parents not ruled to perform surgery on me. If you have personal moral problems or personal religious problems with surgery, those are your business, but I fail to see why you would impose them on me. Would you care to defend your position?
If I read you right, you’re saying that if someone is knocked unconscious in a car crash and bleeding to death, no surgery can be performed on them to save their life. That can’t be right.
Mandolin mentions the fairly compelling case of infants with life-threatening conditions. I think the problem is much broader than that. Broken bones often require surgery, of some sort, to fix, and the sooner the better. Children can’t give informed consent. Do you think that if a three year old breaks her arm, it should be illegal to pin it together surgically “no matter what the circumstances”?
Even aside from the case of minors, and sudden accidents, there are a lot of circumstances in which one’s capacity to consent can be suddenly removed. You bang your head, or have a stroke, or a heart attack, or whatever. You might try to argue that the solution is explicit prior consent, but these things can happen without warning, and it’s hard to enumerate all the possibilities ahead of time. I don’t think prior consent, even vague prior consent, is a practical option.
I’ve found that “no matter what the circumstances” is usually too sweeping a moral statement: for any simple and absolute rule, there’s usually a family of important exceptions that got overlooked.
Hi,
Remember Terri Schiavo? How she “responded” to stimuli. How she was still there. The autopsy showed the fantasy false. It might have been so with this child.
Also, as a former farm dweller, I must point out the philosophy of farmers tends to differ from the urban “norm”. Pets in particular evidence the disparity in beliefs. Urbanites have spent thousands of dollars on their beloved pooch or puddy tat. Farmers usually put the animal down at the first sign of disability.
Farmers can extend this outlook to humans as well.
“The autopsy showed the fantasy false. It might have been so with this child.”
Under what grounds do you suggest this child was brain dead? Terri Shiavo was not, to my knowledge, capable of communicating anything, or going to school.
Also, your attemt to describe a farmer’s outlook is needlessly offensive, as you’ve basically just suggested our good post author could be legitimately put down. I hope you’ll ponder, and apologize.
Hi,
I simply point out that the media circus surrounding the Schiavo case seemed to never mention her condition. In fact, most of the press used “pro-life” code words. I am skeptical in that this may be similar. The posting lists the child’s ability to communicate and that brought up the memory of Ms Schiavo being able to “communicate”.
I deal with profoundly disabled children on a regular basis and I would never consider their lives to be less than mine. However, I also do not have a full-time caretaker role nor am I an expert in this field. Most of the kids I deal with are somewhat functional and I believe that is a certain bias on my part.
No offense is intended. Just wanted to point out that there are other viewpoints on what consitutes life. To some a fertilzed bundle of eggs are life and human and shold be given the full protection under law. Others have differing thoughts. I must add that to some any disability is just cause for suicide or state euthanizing. Their beliefs, not mine.
My point is to show that farming is a harsh reality and that translates into philisophical stances that may be at odds with the population. Farmers kill far more readily than those whose employment is office or factory based. There is also a strong fundamentalist religion among farmers with the added “benefit” of patriarchical assumptions.
Vidya: I don’t really understand a moral opposition to all surgery, but from what I’ve read from various sources, Tracy Latimer’s back surgery — like mine — was to prevent scoliosis so severe it threatened her ability to breathe, or for other internal organs to function. It cannot be compared to elective surgery like the Ashley Treatment where there was no immediate need and it’s strongly debatable there wasn’t any need for the treatment, ever.
Mold: There’s a tremendous amount of writing on the Latimer case as it’s been ongoing since 1993, and I have never found any credible source (including court documents and appeals), against or in support of Robert’s actions, that claims Tracy did not interact with her environment and loved ones. There’s much discussion about the degree of interaction and “mental age” and quality of life, but “brain death” isn’t part of this case.
My point is to show that farming is a harsh reality and that translates into philisophical stances that may be at odds with the population. Farmers kill far more readily than those whose employment is office or factory based. There is also a strong fundamentalist religion among farmers with the added “benefit” of patriarchical assumptions.
I understand your point, being the first generation of my family to not rely on farming and livestock as a way of life, though I did grow up in the country, my father did farm when I was a child, and I did care for 4-H livestock to learn about all it entails. I actually do think it’s likely Latimer’s background as a farmer has something to do with his decisions, but I don’t think that changes anything at all. Nor do I think a background in the harsh realities of farming means one will make the decisions he did. I think this is potentially very misleading for those who have little contact with rural folks:
Farmers kill far more readily than those whose employment is office or factory based.
Farmers with livestock kill as part of their business. That does not mean their business bleeds into their personal lives so that they’re more likely to murder people. That would be ludicrous for anyone to assume.
Maybe he should have just made her a ward of the state
From what I understand, that had been presented as an option but the Latimer family declined. Tracy was also losing weight despite being very small and underweight already (about 45 pounds, then 38 shortly before her murder), yet the Latimers also rejected the use of a feeding tube for Tracy.
The ‘ward of the state’ thing would have been hard enough…sad…very possibly dangerous to her….but her life, and the chance to make it better would have continued.
I remember, a 17 year old friend with really really severe cerebral palsy (as opposed to my own milder version), worked hard one summer to master the art of rolling over in bed unassisted, to make dressing her in the morning quicker…She figured it out one morning, and she laughed, clapped, and thew her bedsheets in the air as a victory salute…she had no cognitive impairment, but couldn’t speak, so all communication was handled with movement, expression and eyes :) She had, as I remember, a vibrant, busy childhood and youth… just sayin…
In an appeal to his conviction, Latimer contended that he “had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter by virtue of her complete lack of physical and intellectual abilities.”
By what stretch of the imagination and the definition of the word, could this act possibly be called “suicide”? I’m not even sure it could be called “euthanasia” since I think that that term implies killing someone in unrelenting pain or distress and, unless her condition was seriously misrepresented in the articles quoted, it doesn’t sound like Tracy Latimer was in any particular distress.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Latimer paroled
From the linked thread-opening article:
“[Robert Latimer] contended it was an act of mercy because Tracy was severely disabled and suffered from cerebral palsy caused by brain damage at birth. She was a bed-bound quadriplegic who could not speak or feed herself. She suffered from a twisted spine, malnutrition, seizures and chronic vomiting.”
I think this is pretty particular distress; my understanding at the time was that the then-scheduled surgery was about removing one (or both?) upper leg bones so her seizures wouldn’t cause severe pain for her by stretching the tendons in her legs.
IMO Robert Latimer solved a terrible situation with Tracy’s suffering in mind; he got the book thrown at him for it (IMO a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have been much more appropriate); however it is, he’s paying his dues for his deed.
he’s paying his dues for his deed
No, he isn’t. He murdered someone. There is no way to pay for that.
He’s locked up because society realizes that he poses a threat to human life.
Now at his point Robert Latimer is out of prison and he has not expressed any remorse for mudering his child. If Robert knew me he could rightfully say that I can not truly understand his situation because I have never had a child with disabilities. However from the research I have done I would say Tracy had some very beautiful abilities such as laughing and smiling and breathing and recognizing her family members and others. Unlike my daughter who has on numerous occasions been very verbally cruel and rude to me Tracy would never do that to her mom or dad. Of course I love my daughter and she has many wonderful qualities.I pay respect and wonderment and applaud all the thousands of parents of children with disabilities who gave so much love and understanding and care and attention to their disablied children and yet their names will not be out there in the news.I applaud all the so called and defined disabled children and adults who are doing the best they can do and are no dout accomplishing alot.