It is rare to hear the words “compassionate” and “homicide” in the same phrase. However, in the case of Tracy Latimer, a so-called “compassionate homicide” ended her young life. In 1994, Tracy’s father, Robert, murdered Tracy to relieve her from her life of suffering due to severe cerebral palsy. Three years later, he was issued a constitutional exemption from the typical penalty for second-degree murder, reducing his sentence from life in prison to a mere two years. This court ruling is controversial, leaving us with important questions about the implications of excusing Robert Latimer’s “mercy killing” of his 12-year old daughter (Thomas, 2014).
While Robert’s actions cannot be undone, this case begs us to ask: was it morally right to kill Tracy with the intention of freeing her from pain? In order to answer this question, we must understand the facts of the case. First, Latimer believed killing Tracy was the right thing to do, arguing that her quality of life was so poor that death itself was a better alternative. It is clear that Robert’s actions were in good faith. Described by the judge as a “loving and protective parent”, Robert had his daughter’s best interests at heart. Or, at least, what he thought were his daughter’s best interests.
As discussed in the case, there is a general consensus that he had good intentions; however, his intentions do not make this action morally right. In fact, killing Tracy was an extreme example of surrogate decision-making gone wrong. Because of Tracy’s disability, she was unable to express her wishes, giving the decision-making role to her parents. However, how is Robert positive that this is what Tracy would have wanted if she does not have the capability to express it?
This uncertainty is at the heart of why Robert’s actions were morally unjust. Just because Tracy lacks what most of us could not imagine living without (the ability to talk, walk, and feed herself) does not mean her value as a person is any less than someone without a disability. Furthermore, Robert can not be sure that her quality of life is diminished, either. How do we know she did not enjoy life in her own way? In fact, the very definition of “quality of life” as defined by the WHO is the “individual’s perception of their position in life”, not the perception of someone else (WHO, 1997). Therefore, it is not Robert’s place to decide when her life should be over, as he cannot possibly know for sure that this is what she wants.
Robert is not alone in this viewpoint. It is not uncommon for the able-bodied to perceive their own quality of life as higher than that of a disabled person. For example, a survey of emergency medical professionals found that only 17% believed their quality of life would be average after a severe spinal cord injury, compared to 86% of actual survivors (Senelick, 2013). In this case, we have to remember that these types of pessimistic attitudes are personal opinions and do not justify Robert’s actions.
The implications of Robert’s sentence in this case extend far beyond the life of his family. Advocates of those with disabilities worry this type of treatment will lead us down a slippery slope where treating people with disabilities as “less than” the able-bodied is justified. As Pat Danforth of the City Council of Canadians with Disabilities states, “We’re telling every senior citizen, every quadriplegic, anyone injured in a car accident that their life is of diminished value” (Thomas, 2014).
Some may argue that Tracy’s quality of life was indeed diminished by the extreme pain she experienced. There is debate on whether her pain was continuous or situational. However, Robert’s actions are still unwarranted for a few logistical reasons as well. First, this is not an act of assisted-suicide, but one of non-voluntary euthanasia. Choosing to kill Tracy in the back of his truck is an active decision, making him accountable for his actions. However, if Tracy were to be arrested during a surgical procedure and her parents opted to file a DNR order then this passive act of non-intervention would be better justified. It may seem like the two are similar; however, it is more a question of the immediate harms to Tracy herself. In this case, Tracy was not in any mortal danger the day her father killed her. Second, Robert did this act alone without consulting his wife or medical professionals about alternative options. As Arianna states in her blog post, he completely bypasses his wife’s say in this life-changing decision. If he were in this situation again, he could discuss his concerns and find a more humane and less rudimentary way to rid his child of her pain. However, it should not have been up to him.
In conclusion, Robert Latimer’s actions were morally wrong even though his intentions were in good faith as he violated the principle of autonomy and nonmaleficence. If other cases like this arise in the future, keep these words in mind: “There is great danger if we allow ourselves to view the disabled as people whose lives are not worth living” (Senelick, 2013).
REFERENCES
WHO. (1997). Measuring Quality of Life. WHOQOL, pp. 1. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdf
Senelick, R. (2013). Reconciling Life and Quadriplegia. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/reconciling-life-and-quadriplegia/281821/
CBC News. (2010). ‘Compassionate homicide’: The law and Robert Latimer. CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/compassionate-homicide-the-law-and-robert-latimer-1.972561
Thomas, J. (2014). Well and Good. Broadview Press, 4th edition.
Hi Julia,
Thank you for such an interesting post. The way that you introduce the case with the oxymorons “compassionate homicide” and “mercy killing” produces an incongruous, self-contradictory effect that allows me to interpret the case in an even greater context.
I agree with your conclusion that Robert Latimer’s actions were morally wrong because he explicitly violated the principles of autonomy and nonmaleficence:
Autonomy
It is important to note that some may argue that suicide is the exercise of one’s autonomy and ending Tracy’s life to relieve her suffering therefore promoted that autonomy. The fact that a choice to commit suicide may be both an exercise of one’s autonomy and in accord with one’s own self-interpreted interests does not, however, morally justify that choice. Therefore, ending her life cannot be morally justified on these grounds either (Lee 217).
Nonmaleficence
Your use of the word nonmaleficence brought to mind one of our in-class discussions. In class we agreed upon the following: “Do not kill humans intentionally / except when threatened (for self-defense).” Is this an objective moral truth? Mr. Latimer should not have killed Tracy as a means of removing her suffering; he should have acted to mitigate her pain instead.
Works Cited
Breslow, Jason M. “The Shadow Side of Assisted Suicide.” Frontline. 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2017.
Lee, Patrick. “Physician-Assisted Suicide in Not Ethical.” Contemporary Debates in Bioethics. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014. Print.
Hi Elizabeth! Thanks for your comment. Could you elaborate a bit more about how this case applies to suicide? I agree that suicide is an autonomous decision; however, I do not think suicide applies in this case as this was an act committed by her father and not by her own means. Suicide, in contrast to murder, requires one to kill themselves. In this case, however, Tracy never expressed a desire to commit suicide because she did not have the means to express her wishes due to her disability. Do you mean to compare this to physician-assisted suicide instead? If so, this case still differs drastically as it was her father’s choice to kill her in the back of his truck instead of a physician administering drugs to kill her. While physician-assisted suicide can be voluntary or non-voluntary depending on the individual case, I think dying in a controlled manner with the support of family and educated medical staff is better justified than the rudimentary actions of Robert Latimer.
In response to your statements on nonmaleficence, I do agree that phrases such as “do not kill” are not objective moral truths. While we would like them to be, there are certain situations like you mentioned (i.e. self defense) where these actions are justified. I think with this, it comes down to the intentions of the killer as well as the situation at hand. While Robert Latimer had good intentions to help his daughter, he should have considered the other options (such as palliative care under the supervision of a doctor) rather than taking her life into his own hands.
REFERENCE
Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. (2014). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: From Voluntary to Involuntary. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/assisted-suicide/to-live-each-day/upload/assisted-suicide-from-voluntary-to-involuntary-edits.pdf
Hi Julia,
While I recognize that suicide was not the means by which Tracy died, I chose to include suicide as a foundation for further analysis when I stated, “The fact that a choice to commit suicide may be both an exercise of one’s autonomy and in accord with one’s own self-interpreted interests does not morally justify that choice […] ending her life cannot be morally justified on these grounds either. ” Hence the word “either.” I felt it was an appropriate deduction; because suicide is not ethically justifiable, ending the life of another for the same reason is not justifiable either. It is often valuable to interpret cases in greater contexts.
Hi Elizabeth! Thanks for the clarification! I understand where you are coming from; however, I think suicide can often be better justified than murder mainly because the person killing themselves is not directly harming another in the process. It is tricky, though, to balance the moral principles for suicide. For example, while it supports autonomy it naturally disregards nonmaleficence for themselves and perhaps even for others (for example, the emotional distress experienced by family and friends). I’d love to better understand the moral principles at hand with suicide versus murder, as I think they may have may different moral implications. Do you have any thoughts in regards to this?
Hi Julia,
I agree entirely with your stance regarding this case. You mentioned throughout your blog the concept of quality of life and how “Robert cannot be sure that her quality of life is diminished, either. How do we know she did not enjoy life in her own way?” I think this statement and your entire argument share some parallels to my discussion regarding quality of life in my blog post about the Stephen Dawson case. In both cases, the patients are suffering from major physical and mental disabilities; thus, others assume their quality of life is not the same as that of a “normal” person, which is why there are debates regarding how to treat these patients. A striking difference, however, between these situations is that in Stephen Dawson’s case, the question is whether to perform a procedure that will prolong his life or to withhold the operation causing him to indirectly die. In Tracy’s case, she is directly killed with carbon monoxide, so I am questioning: is indirectly letting someone die the same as directly killing someone? Legally, directly killing someone is outright murder, but ethically are these the same or is one situation morally superior than the other?
Hi Laura! Thanks so much! After reading your post, I agree. These cases have many similarities! It is unfortunate that able-bodied people often view the lives of those with disabilities in a more negative light. At the same time, though, it can be detrimental to always view their lives positively and ignore their potential suffering. It’s definitely a balancing act we need to master.
The question you pose is a tough one. I am still trying to figure it out for myself! One clear difference I see between the two cases is that Tracy, at the time of her death, is not in any direct moral danger. Stephen, however, will likely die if he does not undergo this surgery. Does this have weight in our duty to save them? I’d say so. Let’s set Tracy aside, as we have already declared her father’s act as morally wrong. Stephen’s situation is a bit more difficult. Initially, I’d say letting someone die is morally superior to killing (as long as their death was peaceful). But, then, this brings the question of active vs. passive euthanasia. For example, sometimes it is morally better to hasten one’s death with sedatives so they do not suffer. While direct killing is seen as active and letting die is seen as passive, they are both active choices someone has to make. Therefore, I think both have the same moral weight. However, I am still trying to work through this dilemma. What are your thoughts?
Hello Julia and Laura,
You guys are talking about exactly what I asked Dr. Risjord at the end of one of the lectures. In my opinion, this question is very difficult to answer. I have not been able to come up with a good argument to further clarify the distinction between passively letting someone die or actively killing someone. The fact that someone has to consciously decide to do either defeats the argument of the former being “passive”. I agree with Julia when she writes that both carry the same moral weight. Because of this condition, it is not possible to ethically differentiate them based on the intent. I think a possible solution to it would be looking at the condition of the patient in medically objective way, by that I mean observing the present condition of the patient and predicting the future outlook based on expert opinions of multiple physicians. If the current quality of life is marked by unremitting pain and if pain is progressively getting worse that it would be unethical to let the patient suffer through it.
This brings up a question of how can we tell if a severely disabled person is suffering through unremitting pain. This could be answered by neuroimaging. There is evidence of certain neural circuits that are activated in response to the sensation of pain. If these circuits are highly active in severely disabled people, it is safe to say that their quality of life is very compromised.
Once a course of action is decided on, carrying it out in a passive way or an active way may not be too ethically different from each other. Let me know what you guys think about it.
Thanks,
Mihir