Robert Latimer is in Ottawa to settle a score with the Supreme Court. Canadians could benefit greatly if he convinced Parliament to listen.
Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer, was convicted in 1997 of second-degree murder for the 1993 mercy killing of his 12-year old daughter, Tracy. Although the jury and presiding judge recommended he be incarcerated for one year only, the Crown appealed, and he was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 10 years in prison. After the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision in 2001, he began serving his time.
As the only Canadian ever to be convicted for an act of euthanasia, Latimer’s case has been widely discussed and reviewed.
Tracy, whose mental age was that of an infant, lived in constant physical pain due to severe, degenerative cerebral palsy. She had endured several surgeries, her hip bone was irreparably damaged, and two metal rods had been inserted in her pelvic bone and spine to keep the latter from collapsing. She could not swallow on her own and suffered from daily seizures.
At the time of her death, she was scheduled to undergo an operation to amputate part of her leg and insert a feeding tube in her stomach.
During Latimer’s trial, Tracy’s doctors testified that pain killers stronger than Tylenol would have compromised her vital functions, possibly creating the need to hook her up to a ventilator.
Nevertheless, the prosecution’s case hinged on the argument that Latimer should have administered “more effective pain medication” to his ailing daughter instead of ending her pain by ending her life.
Since his conviction, Latimer has never hidden his role in Tracy’s death. He has always maintained that taking her life was the only humane response to her hopelessly deteriorating condition.
Euthanasia is the act of helping someone to die either through a deliberate act or by not intervening to prevent death. Assisted suicide occurs when a person requests help, in some cases from a physician, to speed up or bring on death. The practices are legal, under specific conditions, in Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the state of Oregon in the U.S. Two Australian provinces will introduce bills to decriminalize physician-assisted suicide this year.
On his recently created website, which a friend manages for him, this claim sums up Latimer’s ethical conundrum: “We readily admit that it is illegal to torture another human being, but when it is the individual’s own body that is the source of pain, we are in a dilemma.”
Last month, the National Parole Board granted Latimer day parole, which he requesed to serve in Ottawa.
In mid-March, he moved into a community residential facility on Maclaren Street, within walking distance of the institutions that, in his view, treated a conflicted, compassionate father as a remorseless criminal.
While Latimer said that he came to Ottawa to clear his name, it is a near certainty that the Supreme Court will not overturn his conviction. His campaign, however, is likely to reopen the debate on whether to legalize euthanasia, mercy killing, and assisted suicide.
Latimer has repeatedly denied rumours that he intends to push for a change in Canada’s laws on end-of-life decisions.
Having been the object of intense public scrutiny, vilification, and punishment, he does not relish taking on the role of national crusader for the right to die. Instead, Latimer is embarking on a personal quest to restore his reputation.
Meanwhile, thousands of Canadians care for loved ones who are terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state.
In many cases, doctors have been asked to intervene and ease the dying process. All find themselves in the same legal predicament as the one Latimer faced 15 years ago.
If he were to lead the national discussion, Latimer would have allies, such as the Right to Die Society of Canada, and plenty of avenues to pursue.
Two years after his arrest, a Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide recommended an amendment to the criminal code.
The creation of a “compassionate homicide” category, the committee said, would give the courts more flexibility in interpreting evidence, and reduce the minimum 10-year sentence. Nothing ever came of the recommendation.
Both the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in his own case could help Latimer generate support for a fresh look at the issue.
In a policy position it updated last year, the CMA outlines a number of concerns about the potential legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The association stresses the need for the improvement of suicide prevention programs and the provision of adequate palliative care services.
This would protect against the so-called slippery slope argument put forward by disability advocates, who fear that patients would be pressured into ending their life prematurely because of the financial burden of caring for them.
Acknowledging the necessity for public input, the CMA prescribes that a new law “should be determined by the wishes of society, as expressed through Parliament, rather than by court decisions.”
Seeing its hands tied by existing legislation, the Supreme Court, in its 2001 decision, also pointed to elected officials: “ . . . the executive is permitted to dispense mercy and order the release of the offender.” This invitation to clemency fell on deaf ears.
Today, Latimer is in a unique position to lobby the federal government and rally public opinion around the right to die with dignity. Canadians should urge him to speak out and join their voices to his.