Tonight the CBC broadcast an interview with Robert Latimer, who is serving a life sentence for murder in the "mercy killing" of his daughter Tracy, who was disabled. Mr Latimer is trying to have his case re-examined. He demands "honesty" from the authorities, but laments, "They're far too important to be honest." And he complains about the statement in the Supreme Court judgment to the effect that there were alternative means of pain management he could have used instead. He wants to know what they were. To what end, I wonder. So that he can continue to insist that the alternatives were inadequate?
It's a sad case, to be sure, but what he did was still murder. Tracy's life was not his to take; her quality of life was not his to declare too low. Asked if he would do anything differently if he had another chance to relive the twelve years, he showed no remorse for the killing. Instead, looking back further, he says what he would have changed was getting better medical attention for his daughter at the time of her birth, when the damage to her brain occurred. It's fantasy to imagine that even perfect medical care could eliminate suffering; but health care has become one of Canada's most devoutly held religions, so it's not surprising that many observers consider him a hero.
"They stole a lot from us," says a bitter Robert Latimer. Contrast his self-pitying nonsense with the compassion shown by Jean Vanier, founder of L'Arche. At the end of January I heard a webcast of him and Dr Balfour Mount, a pioneer of the hospice movement in Canada. Witnessing the great humility of these latter men, one can see that it is a failure of compassion, a self-centred attempt on the part of the caregiver to escape from his or her own pain, that is ultimately behind so-called mercy killing.
Samantha Mitchell, who is disabled, is quoted in the CBC feature: "In one sense I feel compassion; but I don't feel compassion for him as a murderer."
Recent Comments