Surely there are dangers in allowing people to decide that this or that person should die. However, our society also prohibits a dying cancer patient suffering horribly to end their life by their own hand.
Robert Latimer
- Thread starter Said1
- Start date
Surely there are dangers in allowing people to decide that this or that person should die. However, our society also prohibits a dying cancer patient suffering horribly to end their life by their own hand.
what do you mean by 'however'? How is voluntary suicide even remotely correlated to involuntary euthanasia? I don't see why people bring the two up side by side so often. It's a completely separate issue, one society could address without having to allow euthanasia.
They are compared because both are cases of compassion and not classic criminal intent, and the end result is the same.
Svend helped a person commit assisted suicide by encouraging and promoting her actions. He knew where she was, knew what she was doing, and acted as her spokesperson both before and after the event. That's aiding and abetting. The suicide doesn't need to happen for there to be aiding and abetting. The classic definition is "to help and encourage, usually in the commission of a crime or anti-social act". He helped and encouraged. No one is saying what he did as an equal to what Latimer did, but according to the law they both broke it. One was charged. The other wasn't.
Svend helped a person commit assisted suicide by encouraging and promoting her actions. He knew where she was, knew what she was doing, and acted as her spokesperson both before and after the event. That's aiding and abetting. The suicide doesn't need to happen for there to be aiding and abetting. The classic definition is "to help and encourage, usually in the commission of a crime or anti-social act". He helped and encouraged. No one is saying what he did as an equal to what Latimer did, but according to the law they both broke it. One was charged. The other wasn't.
Kreskin, the crown makes decisions on who to prosecute and who not to prosecute every day. They knew they didn't have a chance in hell of convicting Robinson for speaking in support of a dying woman's wishes so they didn't go ahead with it. I disagree with you that speaking on behalf of someone is aiding and abetting in a crime. Robert Latimer was charged because he actually killed a child and admitted it freely. How could the crown NOT charge him? The opinion then was the same as it is now (what he did was compassionate, she was unworthy of life at that point and he shouldn't be in jail for killing her), but the crown couldn't just ignore a killing. What they did was unpopular, but consistent with the law and it doesn't matter what some other prosecutor did. What matters in this case is what Robert Latimer did. That's it.
In this regard I think perhaps the handicapped community sought to bolster thier own value as humans with Latimers punishment because he denied them the power of further agony of his daughter based on thier own needs not societys nor the sufering girl. Who can use the agony of others to enhance thier own value? Who dosen't?
Svend's treatment was inconsistent with the law but popular. He helped and encouraged her suicide. That's 14 years, whether she dies or not. We aren't asking the justice system to ignore Latimer. It's impossible, he has already spent several years behind bars. What reasonable people are asking for is him to be let go without adding humiliation as a mandatory prerequisite.
So because Svend's treatment was inconsistent with the law but popular, Latimer should get treatment that is inconsistent with the law but popular too. Maybe. It would make us all feel good.
It would make feel better knowing common sense prevailed rather than the parole board needing to feel good because he had to lie or humiliate himself. He has already served the minimum sentence. Releasing the guy isn't asking for much, and it isn't asking for a pardon.
How is it humiliation to say you wouldn't kill another family member if they become sick too? That isn't so much to ask IMO. If he can't even do that, then I don't see how it's all the parole board's fault he's in jail.
Well, as a person with handicapped relatives, and watching my sister work with the brain injured,memories of people saying "they'd be better off dead" of people with down's syndrome or suffering the after effects of stroke paralysis, ring in my ears when I hear of 'mercy killings'. I don't blame the handicap community for panicking at the thought of mercy killings being allowed and commonplace. It's a terrifying prospect if you're someone deserving of pity. If you're someone living with impaired severe disabilities or chronic pain and health problems.
As a handicapped person in waiting I don't see being kept alive in agony as humane. Nor do I advocate systematic snuffing of the disabled. What I tried to say was those disabled people who condemned Latimer would have called the girl back and lived comfortably with her suffering in the misguided belief that thier situation was the same as hers and that her continued suffering would somehow ensure thier security concerns. To make thier point did they not advocate for torture?
No, I don't believe they're advocating torture. Saying it's wrong to engage in a mercy killing isn't the same thing as wanting people to live in pain. What we ought to be screaming for is adequate palliative care so that this isn't a necessary debate all the time.
What's going on here? I wrote agreed as a reply it appeared in gerrys post, I corrected it to read I agree and it appeared in Karries post as intented.:roll:
I found this on another board and immediately thought of Darkbeavers point. I think it speaks to it perfectly. Latimer's daughter was not "challenged". She was living a life of agony. Very very different.
I think the Euthanasia argument no longer applies in this case. He was convicted of murder and he did his time. The anti-euthanasia's win.
Now, it would appear a distinct majority of Canadians feel he should have been paroled. Therefore, he should have been paroled. A group of three pompous snot noses just trumped the will of Canadians. That is not right.
I think the Euthanasia argument no longer applies in this case. He was convicted of murder and he did his time. The anti-euthanasia's win.
Now, it would appear a distinct majority of Canadians feel he should have been paroled. Therefore, he should have been paroled. A group of three pompous snot noses just trumped the will of Canadians. That is not right.
Just disregard that post, I have isolated the problem at my end, it's seems to be smoke related.
What does the term challenged mean anyway? These days the word challenged has lost it's meaning, it does not mean retarded ,it does not mean crippled, it does not mean diseased, it's become a catchall nothing word for the New Silly Age. Nothing. And those snot nosed appointees, who appointed them?