Free Essay - Mercy Killing and the Rights of the Disabled

The societal perception that the disabled are better off dead than alive continues to obliterate the rights of the disabled people to choose whether to live or die (Wolbring, 1998). The society continues to discriminate and oppress the disabled people to the extent of instilling suicidal thoughts into their minds. People believe that the disabled are objects of societal charity, a suffering being, and individuals not worth living (Wolbring, 1998). Therefore, they broaden their access to death, giving them a choice to be suicidal and end their lives on their own or forcing close relatives to do it (Wolbring, 1998). Robert Latimer’s case, which is under appeal in the Supreme Court, is the current basis of argument over the rightfulness of “mercy killing” in Canada with the public airing different opinions over the matter. Legalization of mercy killing will not only free the society of the disabled individuals but also deny the latter their right to life.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Robert Latimer’s Case

In 1993, Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer, killed her disabled daughter days after her physician recommended the removal of her thigh bone to ease the severe pain she was undergoing (Wolbring, 1998). Latimer’s daughter, Tracy Latimer, was born in 1980 in North Battleford. However, during her birth, she stopped breathing after her heart stopped beating, resulting in an oxygen deprivation that led to her severe brain damage. Although her condition was revived, Tracy developed seizures (Supreme Court of Canada, 2001). Throughout the years, the doctors controlled her condition with medications that made her lethargic and worsened the damage in her breathing and digestive system (Supreme Court of Canada, 2001). She also had a severe cerebral palsy that made her lose control of all her limbs. Tracy underwent several surgeries to relieve and balance her muscle tension. Later, her hip joint also dislocated, which subjected her to a lot of pain that made her scream all day (Supreme Court of Canada, 2001). Therefore, she needed surgery to remove the part of her femur and right hip joint.

Robert Latimer suffocated her daughter with carbon monoxide in the cab of his car (The Canadian Press, 2001). When he was taken into custody, Latimer confessed that he had killed her daughter because he could not bear seeing her go through severe pain. Robert was convicted of second-degree murder and denied the 10-year parole for killing her disabled daughter (Mitchell, 1997). However, according to Latimer, the decision to end her daughter’s life was hard, but he does not regret killing her. His decision was heartbreaking, but all he wanted was to end her daughter’s severe pain (The Canadian Press, 2001). In fact, in one of his interviews with Radio Canada in 2011, he affirmed that he was angry at the Criminal Justice System of Canada for failing to have a legal alternative to justify his decision to end her daughter’s suffering (The Canadian Press, 2001). The Supreme Court is yet to review the Latimer’s case on mercy killing, which raises much debate in Canada (Mitchell, 1997).

Legalization of Mercy Killing

The 1999 polls revealed that 73% of Canadians saw Latimer as a good father who acted out of compassion and did not deserve the harsh sentence (Briker, 1999). A similar poll also showed that 41% of Canadians wanted mercy killing to be legalized (Briker, 1999). Supporters of mercy killing ascertain that disabled individuals undergo a lot of suffering and euthanasia grants them the freedom from pain like other competent people (Ryan, 1998). For instance, Tracy could not talk, walk, or feed herself (Lawton, 2000). Her thinking and understanding were that of a 3-year-old. She already had operations on her hips, legs, and back, and further surgery would leave her right leg hanging loosely (Lawton, 2000). She was a burden, especially to the close relatives who had to spend time and money to take care of her. Since Tracy was incompetent, she needed someone to make the tough decision of ending her life (Ryan, 1998).

As Kopke (2001) argued, although it was legally wrong, it was morally right for Robert Latimer to kill her daughter. Ethically, compassion means understanding one’s suffering and doing something about it (Kopke, 2001). Robert understood her daughter’s suffering, and all he wanted was to end her affliction. Even if the surgery were successful, her condition would not get any better. She would also need further surgeries in the future, including the insertion of a feeding tube and operation of the left hip joint (Kopke, 2001). Her pain would escalate after the numerous surgeries (Kopke, 2001). Therefore, Tracy would be better off dead than alive to endure all the pain and suffering. He did not kill Tracy because she was disabled, but the conditions that emanated from the disability lowered the quality of her life, forcing the father to act (Kopke, 2001). As affirmed by Kopke (2001), there was proportionality between Robert Latimer’s future expectations and his actions.

Nevertheless, the pain resulting from disabilities can be managed, and the quality of the lives of the disabled individuals improved. Tracy had a chance to live after the surgeries that her family had speculated would cause her unbearable suffering (Supreme Court of Canada, 2001). It was not reasonable for Robert to take her life holding the perception further surgery would result in further peril when it was a better option to ease her severe pain (Supreme Court of Canada, 2001). Even if Tracy had an understanding of a 3-year-old, children also deserve to live; hence that cannot justify Latimer’s decision to take her daughter’s life. She could still be treated like a 3-year-old if that would help her comprehension (Trish Crawford Toronto Star, 1994). Furthermore, Tracy could have eating bottles inserted in her stomach to enable her to feed and take her medications, which would improve her health and nutrition (Supreme Court of Canada, 2001). Withdrawing Latimer’s case and clearing his name will be dehumanizing and devaluing the lives of the disabled individuals. Like the rest of the people in the society, allowing mercy killing will infringe the rights of the disabled and grant the community the power to take their lives.

Furthermore, mercy killing undermines disabled individuals who do not wish to die. According to the reviewed case scenario, although disabled individuals undergo a lot of pain, they still want to live (Trish Crawford Toronto Star, 1994). The ongoing debate on allowing mercy killing petrifies them because they see their lives at stake (Trish Crawford Toronto Star, 1994). The Council of Canadians with Disabilities further ascertains that legalizing mercy killing will allow parents to kill their disabled children when they decide that their children’s quality of life does not merit its continuance (Lawton, 2000). As affirmed by the Euthanasia Law, disabled children also have the right to consent, self-determination, and above all, life, which were all denied in Latimer’s case. Legally allowing mercy killing will endanger the lives of all the disabled individuals in Canada (The National Magazine, 1998).

Conclusion

Disabled individuals should be given a chance to live instead of being killed as a show of mercy. There is no way a murderer can become a hero. Tracy was a young lady whose future was cut short by his father. Nothing is compassionate about killing disabled individuals. Calling the murder of disabled children mercy killing makes the manslaughter of the vulnerable group a normal occurrence. When Latimer took the life of her daughter, it was not different from killing a non-disabled child. He is a murderer who denied his daughter her right to be alive.

References

Briker, D. (1999). Three quarters (73%) of Canadians believe Robert Latimer ended his daughter’s life out of compassion: a plurality (41%) believe mercy killing should not even be against the law. Ipsos News Center. "https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204737/http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=760" https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204737/http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=760

Kopke, B.S. (2001). Latimer affair: the complex ethics of mercy killing. Humanist in Canada.

Lawton, V. (2000, June). Was killing disabled daughter an act of love or murder?; Supreme Court to decide if Latimer deserves hard time. Toronto Star.

Mitchell, T. (1997, Apr). A flagrant abuse of process! [Robert Latimer case]. Law Now, 21(5), 7.

Ryan, P. (1998, Nov 27). Euthanasia’s slippery slope: the Robert Latimer case has elicited sympathy for mercy killing from Canadians. But a right to life advocate warns the consequences of legal change will be dangerous to the disabled.: [Final edition]. The Vancouver Sun.

Supreme Court of Canada. (2001). Supreme Court of Canada: Supreme Court judgments. Lexbox. "https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1836/index.do" https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1836/index.do

The Canadian Press. (2001, Feb). Robert Latimer has no regrets over disabled daughter’s mercy killing: report. The Canadian Press.

The National Magazine. (1998). Interview with disabled rights activist. The National Magazine- CBC Television; Toronto.

Trish Crawford Toronto Star. (1994, Nov). Don’t they ‘deserve to live?’ disabled kids’ parents fear growing support for mercy killing. Toronto Star.

Wolbring, G. (1998). Why disability rights movements do not support euthanasia: safeguards broken beyond repair. Independent Living Institute. "https://www.independentliving.org/docs5/Wolbringeuthanasia.html" https://www.independentliving.org/docs5/Wolbringeuthanasia.html