On October 24th 1993 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Robert Latimer was convicted of second degree murder for the intentional killing of his 12 year-old daughter, Tracy Latimer, who suffered a severe form of cerebral palsy since she was born. Tracy endured seizures five to six times a day, could not take pain medication because it would interfere with her epilepsy medication, and underwent painful surgeries throughout her life to stabilize her body weight and correct spinal abnormalities. Just weeks before her death, her doctors planned to surgically remove her hipbone, which had become dysfunctional as a result of a previous surgery and spinal complication, and would have taken at least a year of recovery and been extremely painful. Her father, …show more content…
According to Emile Durkheim, the inconsistent legal and social norms regarding the killing of someone in insurmountable pain has given birth to anomies, which refers to a “lack of social regulation in which the unrestricted appetites of the individual conscience are no longer held in check…” (White and Haines2004). While Latimer’s direct motives for killing his daughter revolved around her pain, short life expectancy, and limited sources of joy in life, and horrific surgeries, the lack of a collective moral direction towards euthanasia served to legitimize Latimer’s act against the criminal code, in that his plan was well thought out over a long period of time and enabled him to feel wholly confident and unremorseful about this criminalized act. For instance, Latimer planned days in advance to euthanize Tracy while the rest of his family was at church, following which he had to wait an hour in his garage for the carbon monoxide poisoning to fully work, actions which indicate “his lack of remorse…the significant degree of planning and T’s extreme vulnerability” (Supreme Court Judgements 2001). Durkheim’s theory of sociological positivism plays a very big role in Latimer’s crime, as the legal …show more content…
According to Sally Howard, a Professor at Lethbridge University, Judge Nobel (the first trial judge), demonstrates how judgements dealing with illegal acts against imperfect or deficient bodies can be relabeled as positive and enforce narrow views of what it means to be disabled. In his findings, the judge repeatedly defined Robert Latimer’s actions as a “compassionate homicide” and a “mercy killing”, simultaneously associating words bound for heroes and leaders with the action of life-taking, and this is directly related to the way Latimer described his daughter in trial and the single image of disabled people the court held. Tracy was painted as disfigured, in constant pain, and bedridden (unproductive), and this single story feeds and finds legitimacy in the stereotype that physically and mentally disabled peoples are “basically or nearly dead”, which according to Howard is reminiscent of biological positivism, in that the disabled are a sect of society labeled inferior and unnecessary because of physical abnormalities. It was for this reason that Judge Nobel felt
Lee Lor was a fifteen year old Hmong girl. She was diagnosed with an acute appendicitis. During the operation to remove her appendix, doctors discovered an eight inch cancerous tumor in abdomen. Without consent they removed the tumor which cost Lee an ovary and part of fallopian tube. The doctors told her parents after the procedure what had happened and promised that she was still fertile and able to still have children. The Hmong people do not accept the western world tradition and science. They hold on strongly to their ancient traditions, are animist, and very spiritual. When the parents were made aware of the extra procedure taken place they did not trust the doctors and refused Lee further treatment including chemotherapy.
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
Bernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
On June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper was raped and murder, her remains found two days later, near Clinton, Ontario. 8 In September 1959, Steven Truscott was convicted for all crimes committed against Harper. Truscott was only 14 at the time and was initially supposed to be a death row inmate, with the sentence later reduced to life in prison. This is important, because 48 years later in 2007, he was exonerated of all charges. This case shed light on the problems of the criminal justice system, as the conviction of Steven Truscott was a miscarriage of justice brought upon by police tunnel vision and suppression of evidence.
Justice is something that we all as human being want to see fulfill, especially when we are the one that need it for us or our love ones. The family members of those who were killed by Susan Atkins and her companion will agree with it. The damage cause to their dears and the endless pain and suffering in effect from their death will support the decision take by the parole board in September 2, 2009 in the denial of a compassionate release due to Atkins’ health.
Philosopher, Ezekial Emanuel, asserts that the ethical belief in the 19th and 20th century in the United States are reminiscent of those today, both in terms of content and ferocity. Emanuel adds that interest in euthanasia arose historically and predictably from (1) economic recession or movements of Social Darwinism; (2) doctors who engaged in a struggle with society over their medical-authority and profession; and (3) terminating life-sustaining practices become part of standard medical practice, and there is a desire then to extend this to active euthanasia.
One of the strongest arguments against euthanasia comes from Stephen Potts who states “I object to the institutionalization of euthanasia. Because the risks of such institutionalization are so grave as to outweigh the very real suffering of those who might benefit from it” (Potts, p. 587; emphasis mine). Potts’s main point of this statement is that the risks that come with legalizing euthanasia to the society as whole outweigh the suffering of an individual. Potts gives nine reasons for his argument that he calls the “Risks of Institutionalization”. I will debate two of the nine arguments Potts gives. The first argument I will debate is the “Reduced pressure to improve curative or symptomatic treatment”. In this argument Potts states “Some
...an’s argument. I have shown that intention has nothing to do with how active euthanasia is being performed and I have shown that James Rachel’s has great examples on explaining that there is no difference in passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. Thirdly I have shown that James Rachel’s premises follow from his conclusions not just from the conclusion itself. Also I have given one of his main weaknesses in his argument. Moving forward to Sullivan I have explained how his reasons make no sense according to James Rachel’s. I have also shown Sullivan’s main weaknesses and one of his strong points against Rachel’s. I also gave some of Rachel’s weaknesses but after all I think that I have proven that Rachel’s argument is stronger than Thomas Sullivan for many reasons. Lastly, I have given my own ideas and theories of which argument I think is better.
I believe you bring up an excellent and important point in regards to this case; how parents must feel dealing with the terminal illness and death of their child. I think that consideration is what makes understanding Robert Latimer difficult . It brings up a lot of emotion and for good reason. I understand why it invokes oppostion, but I feel assumptions are made about him that aren't fair. We don't know if he feels guilt or was relieved to have her gone. From what he says, he feels confident about his decision. So to evaulate from a Utilitarian perspective, he is certain he choose the scenario which caused his daughter less unhappiness and suffering. For me where this story is complicated, is that he didn't consider the societal perspective.
Tracy’s father was faced with an unfortunate decision, and in his decision, I cannot condemn him for his actions. Now saying this I don’t believe what he did was particularly the right decision or particularly the wrong decision. As for his life sentence, it’s quite outrageous. My reasoning for this is because of his actual intentions and his mental rationale in doing so. He claims that he did it out of love and mercy, which I whole-heartedly agree with. With Tracy’s condition already being a significant trouble to live with and the fact that her surgeries brought her much pain and suffering is something that would be hard to bear. They claimed that she had the mental capacity of a four month old baby, so in that sense, it’s almost like watching an innocent baby constantly in pain. One part of the case says that Tracy’s mother believed that the many surgeries especially the one that removed her upper thigh bone were not surgeries but mutilations. I can see why her mother would think this. I can only imagine what it would be like to watch your loved one constantly be mutilated and going under the knife. Surgery and visits to the doctor alone can be stressful enough in itself, let alone ones that can be perceived as mutilations. Additionally the case states that Tracy had 5-6 seizures a day, which would imaginably be hard to watch and care for. Ultimately, I cannot in any way condemn Tracy’s
"The Death Penalty Essay." Example Essays.com - Over 100,000 essays, term papers and book reports! Web. 14 Jan. 2010. .
... J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Harm Society.” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 64-71. Print.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
We arrive into this world without a choice; and depart just the same. In the movie “Million Dollar Baby”, Maggie Fitzgerald’s fictional character is a prime example active euthanasia. Maggie’s decision to die is morally acceptable, but it is not ethically acceptable by philosopher James Rachels’ argument. Maggie’s decision was not ethically permissible because she violated Kant’s categorical imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” by asking her trainer, Frankie Dunn, to kill her. Rachels’ argument shows that Maggie’s euthanasia, her decision to die, was morally acceptable. However, Rachels’ never mentions ethics in his argument on the “Morality of Euthanasia”. We cannot conclude from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s choice was ethically acceptable. James Rachels’ argument on euthanasia does not render Maggie’s Fitzgerald’s decision to die, ethically acceptable.
Latimer did was morally wrong. But, when an individual is so severely disable with a poor quality of life and suffers from ongoing pain, one can then justify that it is morally right to assist with mercy killing. The morally wrong about this case was that Tracy did not have a choice in whether she wanted to live or die. It was all decided by her father that taking her life was the best solution for her. In other words, Mr. Latimer decided that Tracy would be better off dead instead of having another surgery. If the Supreme Court did not overturn Mr. Latimer conviction to second degree murder it would have set a bad precedent for people with disabilities. I agreed with The Council of Canadians with Disabilities that giving any lesser penalty will put thousands of people with disabilities in more danger of violence and death. Failure to be responsible for such crime against people with disabilities would be the wickedest form of discrimination. Tracy was placed on this earth for a purpose which we may not understand, but no one knew exactly what her wishes would have