The Case of Tracy Latimer

Tracy Latimer was a 12-year old victim of cerebral palsy and lived with her family on a prairie
farm in Canada. Robert Latimer, who was the child’s father, did a rather unusual act one Sunday
morning while his wife and other children were at church. After putting Tracy in the cab of his
pickup truck, he piped in exhaust fumes until the child expired. At the time of her death, Tracy
weighed less than 40 pounds, and she was described as “functioning at the mental level of a
three-month old baby.” Mrs. Latimer’s reaction upon knowing what happened was rather
strange. She was relieved to find Tracy dead and added that she did not have the “courage” to do
it herself. And this coming from a mother who just arrived from church. Meanwhile, Robert
Latimer was tried for murder, but the judge and jury did not want to treat him harshly. The jury
found him guilty of only second-degree murder and recommended that the judge ignore the
mandatory 10-year sentence. The judge agreed and sentenced him to one year in prison, followed
by a year of confinement in his farm. But the Supreme Court of Canada stepped in and ruled that
the mandatory sentence must be imposed. Robert Latimer entered prison in 2001 and was
paroled in 2008. What moral issue came to your mind after reading the story? Write down this
issue and provide the corresponding question for each. Address the issue by providing your own
stand on the matter. Use the table below.

Moral Issue Question My Stand

Mercy Killing Was the father in the
position to end his child’s
life due to the claims that
it will ease her suffering?
I do not believe the father was in the proper
position to decide to end his child’s life based on
how he sees her condition. He did not consult
with healthcare professionals about other options
he could have used such as better pain
management or care within the institution.
Although he is her parent, it is clear that the
main problem within their family was not their
daughter but rather her condition. With one act,
he rid their family of the burden of having his
child experience her condition by punishing the
child herself.

Tracy Latimer was a mere 12 years of age -

helpless, innocent, and vulnerable. It is
devastating that she and her family had to suffer
for so long but I do not think the parents
exhausted enough possibilities for what they
could have done to help Tracy. In general, I do
not believe that a human life should be taken
away by another person simply because they
deem that life to not be worth living anymore. A
parent’s role in their child’s life consists of love,
support, and doing what is best for them. But in
 Mr. Latimer’s case, he thought the best thing for
his young daughter was for her not to see
another day. He, despite having no proper right
or authority to do so, chose to cut her life short.

As devastating as it may sound, I believe that the

Latimers focused more on their own personal
feelings instead of thinking about Tracy. Some
argue that the young girl would have approved
of this plan to end her life if she only had the
means of saying so. But this presents an even
bigger dilemma. Should we, as a society, allow
children (barely above the legal age) to consent
to their own deaths? Absolutely not. This claim,
and in general, what Mr. Latimer did, is truly
unacceptable and not morally right.
Treatment of During the father’s second I do not think it was right for the judge and jury
Vulnerable trial, were the judge and to be lenient with the punishment Mr. Latimer
Populations jury right to be lenient was supposed to receive after being convicted of
(Disability with his sentencing? second-degree murder. I find it disconcerting
Discrimination) that a man who premeditated the murder of his
disabled daughter was treated to a
“constitutional exemption” by the judge. Even if
the people sympathized with the father, the fact
of the matter is that he confessed to the court
about deliberately planning to kill his daughter.
Instead of serving the normal life sentence with
a chance for parole in 10 years, he was given
one year in jail and one year on his farm.

As such, I approve of how the Supreme Court

chose to step in and deal with the matter (giving
Mr. Latimer his mandatory punishment) because
doing otherwise would have set such a
dangerous precedent. Those with disabilities
would look upon this case and see how people
who were considered “normal” and able-bodied
by society were seemingly justified for deciding
the worth of their lives, the worth of the
vulnerable. What it shows to the world is that a
father can plan to murder his helpless disabled
daughter, confess to carrying out the act, and
still gain the mercy of the law. This does the
opposite of proving to those with disabilities
how the state is there to protect them. This
would not show them that the law seeks to
uphold justice. Instead, they are left feeling even
more vulnerable and at the mercy of others
because of something they have no control over.

In my opinion, the fact that people seemed too

quick to justify the intentional murder of a
helpless and innocent child shows how little
people understand or value the lives of those
with disabilities. The issue remains as to how
people treat those who are more vulnerable and
whether or not they should be given the right to
decide for them. For me, Mr. Latimer was and
should not be justified for his acts especially by
the law and those in authority. Looking at it
objectively, he is in the wrong and murder will
always remain illegal and morally wrong. No
matter his motivations, I firmly stand by how the
end does not justify the means.