In this particular case, Robert Latimer deliberately killed his 12-year-old daughter to relieve her from her pain and suffering. At birth, Tracy Latimer was diagnosed with severe cerebral palsy, which left her physically and mentally disabled. It is imperative to consider both the nature of her illness and the effectiveness of her ongoing treatments to reach an ethical conclusion. Additionally, one must analyze the role of nonmaleficence, which is the principal that obliges us to impose no harm to others (Beauchamp & Childress 2001).
Outsiders have a duty to respect and support an individual’s personal healthcare decisions, as autonomy is a well-regarded moral principal. However, Tracy Latimer lacks the ability to express her thoughts and wishes due to the nature of her illness. Therefore, her father has assumed the sole role of a surrogate decision maker, which allows him to make health care decisions on his daughter’s behalf. As a surrogate, Robert needs to balance the best interests of his daughter with the competing interest to maximize benefits and minimize harms (Harrison 2004).
Throughout her lifetime, Tracy has undergone numerous surgeries to correct musculoskeletal and orthopedic problems (Thomas 2104). Despite Tracy’s inability to speak, there is well-documented evidence that the radical corrective treatments caused her severe pain. As there is no treatment to cure cerebral palsy, the surgeries merely attempted to alleviate the patient’s long-term suffering. In my opinion, the surrogate is merely tasked with choosing the lesser of two evils, as there is no decision available that will diminish the patient’s pain. Essentially, the surrogate could choose to continue surgery or withdraw surgery—however, neither of these options relieve Tracy’s pain and suffering. Therefore, Robert sought out an alternative and illegal course of action, known as active non-voluntary euthanasia.
Although there is no ideal course of action, it’s imperative to consider the duration and nature of the patient’s suffering. There is no denying that all children—regardless of physical or mental disability—have a claim to respect, protection, and medical treatment that serves their best interests (Harrison 2004). Often times, the patient’s best interest is to survive. However, it can be difficult to see how continued existence constitutes as a benefit for patients who will spend their lives in a chronic state of suffering and pain (Manninen 2006). It is fair to assume that Robert attempted to act in good faith, as he believed a continued existence for his daughter would be filled with suffering and pain.
In my opinion, Robert Latimer’s actions were understandable yet highly unethical, as he violated the principal of nonmaleficence. The father imposed intentional harm on his daughter without fully understanding her quality of life and suffering. In fact, no one will be able to fully respect Tracy’s autonomy, as she cannot express her own desires. However, Robert should have consulted additional family members and physicians before conducting non-voluntary euthanasia.
Essentially, I believe that Robert’s case sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Mentally disabled children are a highly vulnerable population and deserve additional consideration—physicians and surrogates cannot make judgments regarding a patient’s quality of life and existence, as they can merely claim that they are acting within the patient’s best interest.
WORKS CITED
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Harrison, Christine. “Treatment decisions regarding infants, children and adolescents.” Paediatrics & Child Health. Pulsus Group Inc, Feb. 2004. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.
Manninen, B. A. “A Case for Justified Non‐voluntary Active Euthanasia: Exploring the Ethics of the Groningen Protocol.” Journal of Medical Ethics. BMJ Group, Nov. 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.
Thomas, John E., Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. Well And Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. N.p.: Broadview, 2014. Print.
“Rex Murphy on Robert Latimer.” YouTube, uploaded by Stubby3492, 1 March 2008, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZruMTCnq39k.
Hey Marianna!
I agree with your conclusion that Robert Latimer’s actions were unethical, despite coming from a place of love. In a situation where we have no way of determining what Tracy would want, how do we respect her autonomy? Even though he violates the principle of nonmaleficence, some say he acted in “good faith” or even compassion. In an interview with Latimer, he believes that judges and juries should be able to recognize compassionate killing and says, “They have to have a judicial process to establish right from wrong. It’s designed to do that; it did not do that in our situation”. In this article, Latimer is adamant that killing his daughter was the right decision and struggles to understand why others disagree with him.
As previously mentioned, quality of life plays a major role in this case. In Koch’s essay, he discusses quality of life constructs that are designed to “measure potential life quality in the face of disability” (Koch, 2000). These instruments can be used to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and health-adjusted life years (HeaLYs). In terms of this case, if the data had been calculated and determined that the surgery was not in the best interest of the patient, does that mean that Latimer should have killed his daughter? Does this QALY and DALY data allow us to take matters into our own hands in what we think is right? Under these terms and conditions, is murder then considered “acceptable”?
Works Cited:
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.
News, CBC. “Latimer still defends killing daughter.” CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.
Tom Koch, “Life quality vs the ‘quality of life’: assumptions underlying prospective quality of life instruments in health care planning”, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 51, Issue 3, 1 August 2000.
Hey Marianna!
This was really well written and really enjoyed reading it. You touched on all the points that came into my mind while reading the case. I agree the ruling of this case sets a very dangerous precedent for similar future cases. Not only does it show that murders can be justified, but it also shows that disabled people are not considered fully autonomous.
Touching on the repercussions of Latimer’s ruling, I would say that his sentence sets a very strong statement to all who have disabilities. As you aptly point out, the ruling of his case strips some of the autonomy that disable people have, putting them at a level that isn’t human. Not only is this humiliating, it puts doubt into the mind of disable people when seeing doctor — which might lead to less visits, and thus more complications.
My biggest critique is directed towards Latimer’s actions and his repercussions. He logically came to a decision that his daughter was suffering too greatly to live life and thus needed a “mercy killing” ; however, the fact that he did not seek medical attention or consult anyone else is disturbing. Despite the jargon used, Latimer murdered his daughter. It was not a “mercy killing” or a “voluntary euthanasia”. His punishment for a murder is too light in my opinion. His excuse as “acting in the best intention” should not be viable in any court of law. This case only sets a precedent for others to take unlawful actions against other for the sake of benevolence.
Robert Latimer’s action reminds me of an unethical coup de grâce. The French term translates directly to “blow of mercy,” describing a homicide for the sake of ending suffering. The debate over justification for coup de grâce has been an enduring theme in literature, captivating audiences with both compelling and repulsive vindication. The moral arguments for and against mercy killings continue to provide ongoing debate about the role of balancing sanctity of life against protection from extreme suffering. While a coup de grâce of a severely injured soldier may allow for ample justification of a “compassionate homicide,” applying the notion of compassionate death to patients with congenital disabilities creates a vastly different set of conditions and reasoning. Expediting death in the face of suffering is a challenging decision, particularly when the suffering is long-term and death is not imminent, as is the situation for Tracy.
Tracy’s condition, which she has suffered from since birth, puts her in a unique situation when assessing the quality of her life and autonomy. Her inability to communicate with others prevents her from determining her care, forcing her treatment to be fully controlled by her father. Tracy doesn’t lose autonomy, rather she never had it to begin. Her quality of life is complicated by the increase in medical procedures which she is require to endure.
When imminent death isn’t certain, the surrogate is tasked with determining which virtues are of greatest significance to the patient. To Robert, he could view his act as a coup de grâce, saving Tracy from a perpetual state of suffering and medical procedures. In fact, anyone willing to make such an extreme choice must hold strong convictions that justify their action. This does not mean that his actions were justified — I believe they were unethical — but at the time he likely felt an emotional conviction to end the suffering. Unfortunately, I see no distinction between Latimer’s “merciful” action and involuntary euthanasia, though our emotional states tend to override reasoning, particularly when tasked with making decisions that are inseparable from emotionally-charged outcomes.