In the case 6.3, a young girl with severe cerebral palsy, Tracy, is killed by her father, Robert, due to her perpetual suffering from her condition. When arrested and charged with second-degree murder, Mr. Latimer argued that he committed the act to put his daughter out of her constant misery. However, the courts did not initially agree with Mr. Latimer and sentenced him to life in prison. Later on, after appeals and reevaluation of the case, Robert Latimer was seen to not have committed a heinous crime, rather, an unconventional way of caring for his child. Thus is sentencing was reduced. The strongest backlash came from groups supporting the rights of disabled persons, as they argued that Tracy’s rights were not being respected. In that the issue arises: were Tracy’s rights infringed upon although she has no official way to provide consent and was enduring pain for most of her life?

Although Mr. Latimer committed the act with good intent, I believe that he was wrong in killing Tracy due to lack of ethical justification. First off, Mr. Latimer took it upon himself to end his daughter’s life without any formal consent from her or medical professional support. Even though Tracy was not able to give her consent due to her cerebral palsy. In this, Mr. Latimer in essence committed a non-voluntary euthanasia, which is illegal. Also, not only did he lack the direct consent of Tracy, but also her mother as well as her doctors. Since Tracy is minor, her mother is also an autonomous figure for her and needs to provide her consent on major decisions made for Tracy. Also, there is no impending medical need for Tracy to lose her life. None of her doctors proposed a mercy killing as a way to end Tracy’s suffering. Rather, they stuck to the moral codes of ethics and practiced non-malfeasance by recommending surgeries that could help her daily life. According to the text, Tracy’s pain was perpetual however not necessarily constant. Although she experienced suffering in the past and will most likely face it in the future, she death was not warranted due to her consistently conscious state. Her life was not directly at risk at the time of her death.  As Beauchamp distinguishes, there is a difference between “allowing to die” and killing. While allowing to die in this case were to be if Tracy experienced a sever compilation in her condition that threatened her life. If her parents placed a DNR on her, then Tracy would be dying by natural causes consistent with her parents being her autonomous figures.

Another issues brought about in this case is risking the “slippery-slope” where we must define a justified killing if the patient is not consenting. If the patient is able to consent, than euthanasia or “mercy killings” can be a more dignified way for people with terminal, painful conditions to pass. However, the issue arises when the patient is not consenting, albeit the patient is a child or is cognitively unavailable. Who is it then that can make these decisions? Must a medical professional also consent for the procedure?  And where is the line drawn to distinguish if euthanasia or mercy killings are even  justified for each situation?

Of all those questions, I feel that the one that would provide the greatest slippery-slope is the last. Theoretically, we could grant consent to the patient’s next of kin, spouse, or caretaker. However, how can we make sure that the assisted deaths would be done with pure intent? Although a person may be facing imminent death while also painfully suffering, how do we know the consenting person in the situation isn’t doing it for greedy purposes that would diminish the purity of ending the patient’s suffering? This would be the hardest to criteria to gauge since everything can seem circumstantial and coincidental.  For example, a successful woman who is battling brain cancer who had slipped into a coma after months of excruciating pain. If her son was the one granted to be the consensual being as well as happens to be the sole heir to her fortunes, how can it be determined if he is trying to put his mother out of her misery or simply trying to cash in his inheritance early?

References:

“BBC – Ethics – Euthanasia: Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia.” BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web.

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. 176-79. Print.

Kishore, Lalit. “Mercy Killing: Pros and Cons.” Merinews. N.p., n.d. Web.

Thomas, John E., Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2014. Print.