Robert Latimer
- Thread starter Said1
- Start date
I don't understand why other than Karrie, no one advocated for her pain to be better managed?
A lot of people truly suffer with chronic pain and it is debilitating. We don't suggest killing them to put them out of their misery usually. We suggest getting better drugs, better medical treatment, seeing a pain specialist, etc.
A lot of people truly suffer with chronic pain and it is debilitating. We don't suggest killing them to put them out of their misery usually. We suggest getting better drugs, better medical treatment, seeing a pain specialist, etc.
Since when do we get to vote on who gets paroled? That's never been our system as far as I knew.
Ummm...no I did-ent! :lol:
Prefacing with "it would appear" quite clearly qualifies what follows as not neccessarily fact, but apparently true.
That being said, most opinion polls I've seen so far range from split to overwhelmingly in disagreement with the parole board.
His own parole officer wanted him paroled.
The parole board themselves admitted that they were inclined to parole him, but decided against it because he would not lick their figurative boots.
Is that what makes us proud?
Reading more about her, all she was given for pain was tylenol. I don't understand why. They say because pain meds could interfere with her seizure meds, but we combine those all the time in our patients. If she was in agony, then it would make more sense to me to change the seizure meds to something that could be combined with stronger pain killers. They were apparently afraid that those pain killers would increase her risk for aspiration. I'd risk the small possibility of aspiration in order to decrease pain, especially if I thought the only alternative was to kill her. There were other options.
BTW, from what I read, she wasn't in continual unremitting pain like some posters here seem to imply.
BTW, from what I read, she wasn't in continual unremitting pain like some posters here seem to imply.
The will of the people has always been in our system. Well, idealistically anyway.
Idealistically perhaps, but not in reality:lol:
- Better pain management of a person considered to be in a vegetative state, still requires the resources of the community or family be spent to no good or productive end. Is being so heavily drugged life? Isn't that the same as being killed every day? Why do we insert artificial barriers in the path of dignified natural death? Will we live untill our accounts are empty? Better pain management has been a priority of those in pain including me for decades why do we have to wait for this challenge to be met and how much pain is enough. Those in pain would meet it soon enough.
Studies I saw when I wrote an essay on euthanasia stated that the review system for euthansia would easily outpace the cost and number of staff associated with sufficient palliative care. Community resources aren't an issue if that's the case.
She WAS NOT in a vegetative state. She was retarded, but she was capable of smiling, laughing, expressing pain, etc. She was no more in a vegetative state than a healthy 3 month old baby is and you wouldn't let a healthy 3 month old baby suffer without pain meds or murder it. You don't have to dope someone up to get pain relief. There is a balance when medicating patients.
By the way, her death was not natural or dignified. It isn't natural to die by inhaling toxic fumes and it isn't dignified to let her die alone in a truck. No child should have to die alone like that.
I can well believe that Tracy. So while we dither about the cost we suffer and those we love suffer. I know it's a very difficult issue to deal with and that's why we have avoided dealing with it. The issue has been put on hold and stock-piled along with the hundreds of other pressing issues we cannot address in our culture.
It's not dithering on my side of things.... I could care less about cost. The best path to take in my mind is good palliative care. I don't agree with euthanasia... especially when it's the euthanasia of someone who can't understand let alone agree to the action. That's why I find the argument that it would be cheaper and a better use of resources to fall a bit flat when I hear it.
I don't care about the cost either and I would like to see perfect palliative care. I wish everyone could be taken care of. I also know that in the past euthanasia was practiced because it was a necessity. If my pain becomes unbearable Karrie Personally I would opt for euthanasia and I would hope not to be denied.
I've seen plenty of situations where it becomes clear from pain levels that it's time to let someone die. But I see a huge problem with stopping a life, versus simply stopping the medical interventions keeping that life ticking.
There is no evidence to suggest that her pain couldn't be reasonably managed, either through medication or surgery. Everyone seems to imagine her writhing in agony for 12 years. That wasn't her reality.
Even if constant pain was her reality tracy, I still don't see euthanasia as justified. Because there was no way to ask her... "Is this pain worth getting to hear and see your family? Is this pain worth the consciousness you do have?" Our ideas of a livable life, and how we would want to live, are what we tend to use to judge the lives of others. And it's not an adequate measure, because we've known health. For someone who hasn't, if all they have known is pain, then it could very likely beat the alternative.
In palliative care it is permissible to give enough medication to kill a person if the intent of administering it was to treat pain. Palliative care nurses do hasten death in order to deal with pain. That isn't considered euthanasia. It's pain management for someone who is going to die in the near future regardless of any interventions. We don't see a need to prolong the dying process. Tracy Latimer wasn't dying of anything when her father decided to kill her. That's what makes it different.
We have dealt with these questions for a long time. The line in the sand was drawn years ago. If you can breathe on your own, you can eat when someone feeds you, your heart is beating and you don't have any diseases that are going to end your life, we aren't allowed to kill you.
That's a good point. I hadn't thought about that. I just think it's important to be accurate in how we portray her life. People seem to think ending pain in mercy, but they ignore the fact that she wasn't always in pain and that there are other ways to end pain besides killing.
However means that even when you are talking about a person deciding to end their own life we deny them that choice. Quite apart from Latimer and his decision to end his child's life we refuse to allow a person control over life and death for themselves.
The two are brought up together because assisted suicide is not allowed because of the fear that doctors or health insurance beaurocrats or whoever will be allowed to decide when it is time for us to die, rather than strive to enhance human life and save people in dire circumstances. We want to know that people will respect our lives. This is essentially the "slippery slope" argument allowing anyone to decide that our lives our no longer worth living destroys human worth and dignity.
If i have terminal cancer and am living in pain with no hope of recovery and my choice is to end my life why can't i choose death?
If i am brain dead and have decided beforehand that I don't want to live in such a condition why can't my wishes be respected?
If I am the parent of a child who is suffering pain and who has no chance of recovery why can't I end their life?
If I am tired of dealing with a vegitative, brain dead child why can't I, as a parent decide that life should be discontinued?
I don't like your life, can I kill you?
Of course we need to prosecute murderers. Do we need to prosecute those people that assist suicidal terminaly ill patients? Should we demand another pound of flesh from Rober Latimer?
It is ours to decide.
Robert Latimer decided that he would suffer the punishment that society required to save his child from more pain. All of the could of, would of, should of's are irrelevant. Only the parent and child mattered in this instance. Society can punish and punish, Latimer should stick to his guns. Is he a martyr? Mabey. Is he a cruel heartless killer? I think not.