No Parole for Canadian Mercy-Killer

[Che Guava]

The unfortunate sticking point is that he refuses to admit that what he did was wrong. If he did that, he would have been let out. The law is the law and exceptions cannot be made.

Everytyhing that I have read to date says that it is the parole board's job to decide if he still poses a risk to society, not to judge whether he is sufficently 'sorry' about the action. Remorse on actions can be used as an indicator of whether a person is likely to re-offend, but I think in this case it is pretty silly to apply that reasonning, especially when the vast majority of the country shares in his view.

This is the part of the story that really gets under my skin: if, for eg, I have to steal to feed my family and get caught, I can take my punishment and go to prison for my time. But no-one is going to tell me that I have to conform to anyone else's moral code converning my actions. We're not playing 'thought police' just yet.

The fact that we as a modern liberal and compassionate society have not managed to accept the fact that some lives are not worth living and draw up a system to allow people to commit the humane act of ending their lives of suffering is mind boggling.

How hard is it to form a government sanctioned board of medical professionals to evaluate appplications made by sufferers or their legal guardians to approve or deny the application of euthenasia?

Not hard at all. Maybe we, as a nation, could give a few of our federal ministers a plane ticket to Switzerland to see how they do it...

 

[sysyphus]

Everytyhing that I have read to date says that it is the parole board's job to decide if he still poses a risk to society, not to judge whether he is sufficently 'sorry' about the action. Remorse on actions can be used as an indicator of whether a person is likely to re-offend, but I think in this case it is pretty silly to apply that reasonning, especially when the vast majority of the country shares in his view.

I may have been confused. I do know that to receive parole that one has to admit to their guilt.

I'm still unconfortable with legal guardians making that decision.

But, damn, would I like to have the right to assisted suicide in our country.

If there's a check in the form of a medical panel, why would you uncomfortable with it?

 

[MjM]

Even though there was seemingly no cruel intention, murder is still just that. The man was acting out of emotion rather than reason.

What if something came out soon that made things much easier?

If you saw someone you love dearly go through excruciating pain every day for the rest of their life, with no hope at all, letting them live through that is worse then any murder. I thought you as a 'good Catholic' might see that, but it seems the church is still as backwards as ever.

 

[Zarn]

If you saw someone you love dearly go through excruciating pain every day for the rest of their life, with no hope at all, letting them live through that is worse then any murder. I thought you as a 'good Catholic' might see that, but it seems the church is still as backwards as ever.

Ah yes, murder will always be justifiable. Same old. Same old.

 

[MjM]

Ah yes, murder will always be justifiable. Same old. Same old.

Not at murders, not by a longshot, but it's painfully obvious this one is.

 

[fishjie]

Ah yes, murder will always be justifiable. Same old. Same old.

so you'd rather have someone live life in constant torment for the rest of their lives, suffering, with no way out, than allow them to die in peace?

so murder is not okay but torture is?

then again, all non christians are going to burn in hell forever, so i guess i know the answer to that one...

 

[El_Machinae]

If there's a check in the form of a medical panel, why would you uncomfortable with it?

99% ick-factor, really. I don't have a well formed opinion on it, and it's certainly not defended logically.

I struggle with "harming for their own good" in general, and so I run into a wall when thinking of "killing for their own good".

 

[Bill3000]

Ah yes, murder will always be justifiable. Same old. Same old.

Euthanasia isn't murder.

 

[Zarn]

so you'd rather have someone live life in constant torment for the rest of their lives, suffering, with no way out, than allow them to die in peace?

so murder is not okay but torture is?

then again, all non christians are going to burn in hell forever, so i guess i know the answer to that one...

Yes, your stereotypes work very nicely.

 

[The Yankee]

Zarn isn't speaking for the Church, even though they may have similar views. And I do understand them. After all, what happens if a person could think that they want to live, but don't have a way to express that wish?

There are some rather nasty gray areas that are even harder to decide than this particular case, IMO, even though I think I'd side with the father on this one.

 

[fishjie]

Yes, your stereotypes work very nicely.

and your comparison of a mercy killing with actual murder doesn't.

 

[Zarn]

and your comparison of a mercy killing with actual murder doesn't.

Killing a non-threat is murder. She wasn't a threat to him. I guess daddy wasn't looking to continue his responsibility.

 

[fishjie]

letting someone live in constant pain, when they have the mental capacity to FEEL the pain, but not the mental capacity to understand why they are in pain, is torture.

prolonging their suffering as long as possible is sick.

 

[Zarn]

letting someone live in constant pain, when they have the mental capacity to FEEL the pain, but not the mental capacity to understand why they are in pain, is torture.

prolonging their suffering as long as possible is sick.

It is prolonging life in order to find a way to make things right.

 

[fishjie]

a valid point. however, the article said that due to complications, the only painkillers the girl could receive was aspirin. any stronger ones would probably kill her. as pointed out before, if there was hope for medical treatment on the horizon, the doctors would have told the father. his daughter was already 12, so he had already waited over a decade for thing to get better, but they didn't. at that point, he faced the possibility of prolonging his daughter's suffering indefinitely.

if the daughter had full mental capacity and said, "dad i want to live" then he would have been in the wrong. but that wasn't the case.

 

[Narz]

I support him. 7 years was enough and he was trying to spare his daughter pain. She didn't have much of a life anyway. There are far more malicious criminals that get far less time behind bars.

 

[Bill3000]

It is prolonging life in order to find a way to make things right.

I don't see how artificially prolonging life like that is right.

 

[Mandeville]

The parole board is insisting that Latimer accept their view that it was wrong to kill his daughter. Robert Latimer believes it wasn't wrong. The issue here is that Latimer, a father, killed his daughter, as opposed to a doctor. Robert could have easily found a doctor to assist in the suicide with little consequence. The motivation appears to be out of love, but he seriously broke the law when he put that child in a car with exhaust fumes. It seems like an appropirate solution, but is actually a stupid one considering its violation of numerous checks and balances. Like the one where you can't put people in cars with exhaust fumes running into them. As a consequence he will sit in minimum security until he finally changes his mind.

 

[fishjie]

i agree he should be punished, but he is being punished far too long. he should be punished because not punishing him sends a message that its okay to kill your own kids. it should have been done through official channels, so doctors could have assessed the facts and situations and come to a decision. i definitely dont want people doing mercy killings of their own kids. in this case, the daughter's condition was extreme, but many "mercy killings" are just an excuse to get rid of a kid. i do NOT think this was such a case however, so he should not get life imprisonment.

he poses no threat to society, meanwhile there are violent criminals who are serving far less time.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I don't support him:

1) Why is he the arbiter of the very state of whether his daughter lives or not?
2) Daughter is incapable of seeing father's reasoning
3) Sets precedent -- people with severe disabilities have lives "not worth living".