Background:
In 1993 Robert Latimer killed her 12 year old daughter by carbon monoxide poisoning. He freely admitted his participation in this murder. His daughter had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy since birth and was physically and mentally handicap since the beginning. Due to her physical disability was forced to undergo a myriad of surgeries just to stay alive. Out of so called mercy he decided to end her life. Many in the jury that tried him agreed with his point of view and gave him a light sentence. However those who fight for handicap rights challenged this ruling.
Dilemma:
This case brings up a 2 major dilemmas. The first one is euthanasia, should euthanasia be allowed in the first place, and if so who get’s to decide when it can be administered. The second is protecting and respecting the autonomy of those who are handicapped. Should Latimer’s point of view be accepted and this case taken as a precedent then it brings up the question of who is qualified to judge another person life as too painful to live and who get’s to say when they should be euthanised. If others are allowed to decide for those who are handicapped then where is the line drawn and many fear a slippery slope leading to abuse against handicapped people.
Discussion:
In life there is a limit to fighting, sometimes there are fights that we cannot win. Part of being wise is knowing when to thrown the towel and give in as sometimes it just not worth fighting. Thus in my personal opinion euthanasia should be a perfectly legal. In this case Latimer’s daughter’s life was not a life worth living. Her being bound both physically and mentally into a twisted shell of a body that requires painful surgery just to keep going. Her life is not what I would call living, that is merely existing. Should she live to adulthood she would still be bound to her parents and be unable to do anything on her own. At that point she is worse off than a rock as she feels pain but can’t move, can’t think straight, and in essence can’t live a life worth living. The fact that she has no autonomy bring into the slippery slope argument but there are degrees to this and her condition definitely constituted an instance where proxy action is required.
This is a similar problem seen in cancer patients who must undergo painful chemotherapy which may prolong their life only of so long. In the name of preserving life they must live life under constant pain and yet in a poll given to Germany doctors, 50% of them declared they would not undergo the same procedures and rather just let themselves die happy. Thus euthanasia I think is something that should be handled on a case by base basis. Instead of trying to preserve life above all else, quality of life should be factored in and “mercy killing” be allowed. Instead of running away from the issue there should be a standardization or laws that generate criteria that the majority of physicians can agree upon. This should in turn would help combat the worries of the slippery slope where euthanasia may be used against the will of handicap dependent patients.
By setting up a defined set of laws or at least a basic framework that would help decide when euthanasia can be declared and bringing this issue out into the open those who would abuse will be forced to go through the law and protection would be provided for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
Citations:
Scurr, Martin. “Why MOST Doctors like Me Would Rather DIE than Endure the Pain of Treatment We Inflict on Others for Terminal Diseases: Insider Smashes Medicine’s Big Taboo.” Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
I think this concept is really tough because there are so many fine lines. In this case, yes, she was in immense pain and she could have very well been suffering. One thing that stood out to me was that Robert made an executive decision to end his daughters life. He didn’t consult with his wife or the medical professionals. If he really believed that his act is morally justifiable then he should have felt confident enough to at least talk about it with his wife and come to a collaborative course of action. This case also is tough because his daughter was unable to talk. According to Koch, many of our ideations on quality of life for people with disabilities are more a reflection of our own personal fears and opinions rather than their actual feelings. Sure in this case she may have been in immense pain but we have no way of knowing what she truly wanted because she couldn’t express it.
This case was agreeably difficult since on one hand we can imagine that Tracey was in immense pain but, on the other hand, homicide is the epitome of maleficence. However, even this case of “compassionate homicide,” is not justifiable. Before delving into the intricate nature of the kill versus let die dilemma, I would like to comment that this post’s author said Tracey would be, “worse off than a rock.” No human being deserves to be compared to a rock. There are many cases of people having mental awareness despite being completely physically disabled. I will not go so far as to say Tracey had full awareness, but it is possible that she did derive some slight pleasure in the comfort of her mother’s hands or at the sound of her own name. Likewise, of course, she did feel pain. Overall, we must consider that one who feels pain also must feel non-pain and even pleasure at some point. It is unfair to compare the mental processes and emotions of someone born with full physical abilities to that of one who was born with limited physical ability.
After ensuring that the subject of a physically disabled person’s emotional and mental status are giving fair consideration, I will broach the question of to let die or to kill. Letting Tracey die during a surgical complication would be preferable to actively killing her. It is almost impossible to ensure the lack of maleficence during a homicide, thus it should remain morally culpable at all levels and for all reasons. However, imposing a do not resuscitate order during a surgery would be preferable since at least in this scenario one can be sure that beneficence is the only moral principle guiding the physician’s actions. If she were allowed to die in such a setting, one in which she originally was receiving a surgery to reduce her pain, all involved can rest assured that the only moral principle involved were beneficence and non-maleficence.
To begin with, I appreciate Suranjana’s critique of the comparison of Tracy to a rock, for the insensitive statement exacerbates the negative opinions and stigmas against people with disabilities. As a result, people could perceive them as “burdens” to society, to which Steven’s comment about “being bound to her parents”alludes. Moreover, I agree that an individual should consider quality of life when choosing to undergo or forgo medical treatment. However, this case differs, because the patient could not express her desires. Therefore, the father did violate the moral principle of nonmaleficence, and I consider the father’s actions unethical, despite his justification for saving his daughter from a poor quality of life. Furthermore, the murder of a person with disabilities, regardless of the proposed justification, creates an opportunity for homicide against other discriminated groups.
While many of the points you make are valid, I disagree that euthanasia should be 100% legal across the board for anyone who would like it. In many instances, such as the Brittany Maynard case, I do support euthanasia, as she was a competent woman who made the decision for herself. However, in the Robert Latimer case, a few things jump out at me that make me hesitant to support his decision. First, he was the sole decision maker. Other family members, doctors, or knowledgable professionals did not appear to have say in the decision. While the daughter was very disabled, she did not have a say in the matter– especially because she did not speak– removing any of the autonomy she had left. Because the daughter could not advocate for herself, the father should have had to consult with others before making a decision as heavy as to end a life, and medical professionals should have been on board with him as well.
Like Brooke, I also agree that euthanasia should be legalized if an individual is certain that this is what they desire. Free choice is a largely debated issue in America, and this legalization would drastically broaden our free choice as citizens. My major problem with this case discussion is that if you justify Robert Latimer committing homicide out of compassion for his daughter to be within the confines of the law, it must be ensured that a precedent is not begun regarding the disabled. If Robert’s actions are justified, just because in this case it was determined acceptable to end Tracy’s life, it is not acceptable to perform the same actions for any disabled person. I feel as though this could be an incredibly slippery slope, and it would be a travesty if the precedent occurred in the court of law.
As Suranjana clearly explained, there is a fine line between euthanasia and homicide. How are we supposed to legally judge that the father did not deliberately and unlawfully kill his daughter? Therefore, I believe that euthanasia should not be legalized. Euthanasia should not pertain to humans but should only be allowed on experimental laboratory animals such as rats. In class, we’ve extensively discussed autonomy and how humans should be treated as autonomous beings. It is therefore the duty of the father to practice beneficence and not to take it upon himself to make the decision to end his daughter’s life. If the father felt so strongly about making the life of his daughter better, he could have discussed his sentiments with her physicians and an increasingly better and morally acceptable decision could have been made.
I found your comparison of Tracy to cancer patients to be particularly thought provoking. It is interesting to consider what factors set each of these examples of euthanasia/ desires for euthanasia apart. The first of these factors is autonomy and voluntariness vs. involuntariness. Robert Latimer’s “mercy killing” of his daughter, Tracy, was not voluntary euthanasia. Rather, Robert recognized Tracy’s lack of competency and took her life into his own hands. Although I am not familiar with the German study you were referring to, I would venture to guess that the doctors who were surveyed were considered to be both competent and autonomous beings. As such, if they were to refuse treatment and let themselves die, this would be a voluntary decision. Additionally, it is necessary to consider the prospects of both Tracy and these cancer patients. We are not informed of the condition of these cancer patients nor the type(s) and progression of the cancer. However, one might argue that the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy treatments most likely had some hopes of getting better. Conversely, Tracy had prospects that continually got worse. Although I think a case could be made for both euthanasia in some cancer patient cases and people like Tracy, more than anything I think we need to recognize that regardless of it being voluntary or having good prospects, the sanctity of life should be respected as its value, regardless of quality of life, is significant.
I agree that euthanasia should be legalized. People should be able to choose how they die if their quality of life is so poor that death is soon and inevitable. Tracy is a unique case because she is not capable of making any decisions or talking; thus, she cannot choose if she wants to die or live. So how do we know what she actually wanted? This may be a horrible thing to say, but in order to minimize harm it is justified to end Tracy’s life. She was a great deal of physical pain and her father was suffering from being her care taker. This was not an easy decision for him to make, but i believe he did was best and he had good intentions.
In my personal opinion, euthanasia should never be legal. We should respect all human beings without discrimination of age, health, and disability. Being critically sick doesn’t make you less human than others. Being old and suffering from Alzheimer’s doesn’t validate a deflation of life value. Being a disabled PERSON, doesn’t justify to be murdered in the name of a “Mercy Killing”. If a doctor wants to “let die” or “mercy kill” a disabled person, old aged people with Alzheimer’s, critically sick people who need a long term costly treatment like anorexia nervosa patients and people with terminal illnesses, in the name of “inflicting no harm” and ceasing their pain, then the doctor will be only curing the curable short term profitable diseases. Who has the right to evaluate the life of others as whose life is of more value and deserves to live while that of a lower value deserves to be terminated? It sounds ridiculous but this is the reality of medicine nowadays. Maybe there should be a course teaching the skills of “Mercy Killing” as a requisite for medical degree.
Robert Latimer is a murderer. What he did is a crime. Killing is the essence of maleficence and it is never justified except for self-defense. To me, there is nothing called compassionate homicide. There should be no justification for his criminality or else most people with disable children will be encouraged to do the same. It is not allowed to kill animals with this brutality, but when it comes to disable people it is fine and acceptable in the name of “preventing harm”. No person should be described as being a rock….being sick, old, disable, doesn’t make you less human than any other human beings with feelings, pain, joy, fears, tears, and even dreams. Tracy has her own world of perception. We cannot perceive how she sees life through our own insight. Did Tracey say, “I want to die”. Is Robert so compassionate to take away the life of his own daughter, his own flesh and blood, in the name of mercy killing? “Let Die” is not like homicide. Maybe in letting die, nature will take its course and death will be the outcome of natural causes. But inflicting harm and crime upon a 12 years old daughter who is defenseless and cannot say a word is nothing but an ugly crime that no one should justify in the name of compassionate homicide. Yes, she is disable person. Yes she is a burden on her family. Yes, she has pain, but there is medicine for pain. The main problem is that she is a disable child who has no future. In order not to worry about her, her father took away her life with his own hands. Maybe some call him a hero.
I have to be honest, when reading this post I felt a strong sense of what I can only describe as moral outrage. Examining those feelings deeper, I realized it’s because I feel that Steven’s argument completely disregards the principle of autonomy that we award to individuals via moral status. Even the most handicapped of individuals in the world deserve some form of moral status, and I would argue equal moral status to those society deems as “normal” (The developing field of Disability Studies is working to champion moral status and rights for handicapped and disabled individuals. Emory has recently opened up an entire department for this field of study.). Beauchamp and Childress elaborate extensively on five commonplace theories of moral status that establish criteria for status based on human properties, cognitive properties, moral agency, sentience, or relationships. The structure of each theory reveals flaws because they all have the potential to isolate a certain vulnerable group in society and withhold status from them. B+C state, “The worry today is that some groups, especially vulnerable groups, may still be discriminatory social situation: They fail to satisfy criteria of moral status precisely because the dominant criteria have been tailored specifically to deny them partial or full moral status,” (79).
This post’s suggestions for structuring euthanasia and mercy killings and its condoning of Robert Latimer’s actions show that it has fallen precisely into this dangerous trap in which we firmly place the value of someone’s life into someone else’s hands. Tracy Latimer may have been completely reliant on outside help, but who is a physician and physician alone—as you suggest—to make a judgment on her value of life. I understand that you wanted to respect the quality of life argument made by many scholars and physicians, but by suggesting future policies that only consult physicians and not the individual or their surrogates, you’ve gone beyond quality of life and into value of life. I suggest you read Koch’s assigned article to better understand the slippery slope your argument is sliding down. Many quality of life arguments made today can be related to some of the darkest moments in human history and I would hate to see another dark period emerge because we put too much power into the hands of one specific group of people, physicians, even if they are one of the most altruistic groups in society. Morality comes from a balance of power and judgments in society.
As far as Robert Latimer’s specific case goes, no where in this post’s argument does it acknowledge that Robert Latimer’s actions were confirmed by multiple courts of law to be a homicide, a moral wrong, and an act of violence. His sympathizers related to his motivations for killing, not his physical act of murder, yet I think this post condones both. I would guess that many people with severely disabled loved ones would find your proposal for regulating life offensive. They have had personal experiences that uphold Koch’s arguments for the existence of a high quality of life for many disabled individuals, despite society’s attempt to categorize them as abnormal. My cousin is wheelchair-bound with cerebral palsy and she requires intensive care from my aunt and uncle, yet it is a burden they bear with enormous love. She exhibits smiles on occasion, enjoys coloring, and can communicate through emotions that she likes constantly be around people. How do we know Tracy didn’t do/feel the same?
I do not judge parents who find this burden to be too much, but I believe there will always be options such as state homes and privatized health aids to provide assistance before death. Let us not forget that there is an enormous range of what classifies a human being as disabled from minor depression to full-body paralysis. Physicians trained in American biomedicine are taught to look for abnormalities inside the body and cure them. Placing the power of mercy killing and euthanasia in the hands of a profession that has been trained to seek out and cure abnormalities is dangerous in my opinion. These physicians swear by an oath that involves doing no harm. I believe placing the extreme responsibility of judging a person’s life value in the hands of physicians would send them into moral crisis. What this post suggests that they do—solely determine the quality of life of an individual—clearly violates their desire to abide by non-maleficience and would leave individual physicians in moral dilemma turmoil.
My biggest concern with this case is the quickness with which people are to claim that a moral agent or primary caregiver are not in any position to make claims regarding a patient’s suffering or pain. When someone is in charge of every single aspect of another’s life – it becomes apparent to them what “normal behaviors” for the patient are. Any changes or deviations from consistent sounds or responses to new stimuli can thus be interpreted by the caregiver as causing anxiety to their loved one. In this case, the father is obviously watching the progressive and slow deterioration of his daughter’s state and is aware that to put her through more surgeries that he has already witnessed only cause her pain would be cruel and tortuous. The principle of nonmaleficence here calls for an ending to the suffering of our patient because in fact death is less harming than attempts to allow the patient to persist.