No one? Are you positive about that?
quote:
What impresses me is that even all these years later, no one dares speak out publicly for the "right" of parents to kill their disabled children.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]No one? Are you positive about that?[/b]
Yup. No one on babble, no one in the media that I have seen. Positive.
quote:
So what? It's great that such issues should be discussed and debated.
Are they being discussed and debated? I'm not certain they have been. There have been a couple of peices which discussed the issue on the CBC, but as far as I know, indepth coverage of this or any other disability rights, on the mothercorp at least, has been sorely lacking.
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
quote:
Yup. No one on babble, no one in the media that I have seen. Positive.
Your right, but one Ceeb newscaster did say that Latimer had broken the law out of love.
So, no. The media dosen't say outright that tracey should have been murdered, but I think their is some support for Latimer in the media.
A letter in the Globe today said:
quote:
Robert Latimer and his wife watched their child suffer with inadequate pain control and ongoing seizures as she faced a future of increasing and unbearable suffering.As my wife and I watched our beautiful son dying of cancer 11 years ago, we knew we could be faced with a similar choice. Mercifully, morphine kept his pain mostly under control, though his suffering and nausea were still almost unbearable. Tracy Latimer was denied morphine because her nervous system was already suppressed by her anti-seizure medications.
We hope that we would have had the strength to do for our child what Mr. Latimer did for his, and the parole board be damned.
So people are discussing it, and it's not all against Latimer.
Oh for the love of Pete! The man shouldn't have gone to prison, but he shouldn't be sanctified either. He is a murderer. Euthenasia should never be about the feelings of a person's family and friends, it should always be about the individual.
Unionist you're right. Any coverage is good coverage. It would be nice if the discussion were a bit more broad and included more gimpy voices.
Quote:
No one should have the right to end the lives of severely disabled children simply because of caregiver stress.
For me, that is exactly the attitude keeping him in jail. Naive belief that Latimar was stressed and did this for personal relief. V.S he should serve a reduced sentence for assisting a loved daughter whom he could no longer watch travel her life path of hell.
Niether of which a parole board waiting for remorse can decide.
What our Country needs to do is set policy on euthanasia, people need the right to decide for themselves. The right to die with dignity, and the right to aid someone in need of assistance.
We are all going to die sometime. Shouldn't we be able to decide, in many cases, when the hell of having to live, can stop.
Quote:
As my wife and I watched our beautiful son dying of cancer 11 years ago, we knew we could be faced with a similar choice. Mercifully, morphine kept his pain mostly under control, though his suffering and nausea were still almost unbearable. Tracy Latimer was denied morphine because her nervous system was already suppressed by her anti-seizure medications.
We hope that we would have had the strength to do for our child what Mr. Latimer did for his, and the parole board be damned.
Spector my condolences to the writer of that article. Thank-you to the writer for having the strength to voice an opinion of such honesty on this very touchy issue.
[ 08 December 2007: Message edited by: co-worker ]
quote:
Originally posted by co-worker:
[b]What our Country needs to do is set policy on euthanasia, people need the right to decide for themselves.[/b]
Did Tracy Latimer decide for herself?
quote:
For me, that is exactly the attitude keeping him in jail. Naive belief that Latimar was stressed and did this for personal relief. V.S he should serve a reduced sentence for assisting a loved daughter whom he could no longer watch travel her life path of hell.
Niether of which a parole board waiting for remorse can decide.
How do we know she was going through hell?
Did Latimar himself have a choice?
No miracle cure, no medication that could ease her pain in conjunction with the anti-siezure med's she was already taking, and only worse for her to come. My heart goes out to anyone in this horrific situation.
My FATHER, was to me for most of my life an invinceble man. 6'3" 260lbs a proud respectful and dignified man that I and many others would aspire to be like, was demoralized by cancer. It took him to a level he would never have wished on his worst enemy. A mere 120lbs, 61 yrs old, wearing a diaper, and having his children hold him up when he got to the toillet.
I know that my father needed the morphine he was taking for his extreme pain, however my mother and sister (both in the medical field) were administering his morphine. I know for a fact that the morphine doses, and rate at which he recieved them increased to his end. You will never hear me say they killed my father, but that they saved his last little bit of dignity by allowing him to suffer no longer!!
co-worker so sorry for your loss, it is a horrific thing nursing your parent until they die, and no doubt it is worse for a parent doing the same for their child, who was supposed to out live them.
While we are on the topic of cancer, I would like to ask where is the outrage for this terrible non-action by our government, which is condemning 1000's of those who could have lived to death, in particular it effects women suffering from breast cancer who have a good chance of survival with radiation therapy.
quote:
On Thursday, amid a deepening crisis facing medical facilities and patients across the continent, safety regulators ripped the Crown company for violating terms of its licence.The company told the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hadn't realized the safety-related upgrades were compulsory, but couldn't explain why.
"We are doing our root-cause analysis of the situation and we will have the answers to the comments and concerns that were raised," AECL spokesman Dale Coffin said Friday.
"We take (the CNSC's) comments very seriously."
The shutdown of the NRU reactor, now expected to last into January, has crippled MDS Nordion, which is one of the world's largest suppliers of medical isotopes - used for testing millions of people around the world for cancer and other diseases.
In Ottawa, the political opposition accused the government of being negligent and of failing to grasp the seriousness of the situation.
"This is an emergency; people can die," said Liberal MP Hedy Fry.
"And when you ask the questions, they say, 'Oh, but we could do nothing,' and we know that they could."
[url=http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/071207/n120782A.html]http://www.recor...
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]So what? It's great that such issues should be discussed and debated. What impresses me is that even all these years later, no one dares speak out publicly for the "right" of parents to kill their disabled children. Had Latimer been given a mild sentence - or acquitted - would that have been the case?[/b]
Isn't arguing that he shouldn't be punished the same as supporting this "right"? Lots of people don't think he should have been punished.
quote:
Originally posted by Draco:
[b]Isn't arguing that he shouldn't be punished the same as supporting this "right"? Lots of people don't think he should have been punished.[/b]
Just name one person who has said either:
1. Latimer was right to kill his daughter.
OR
2. Latimer had the right to kill his daughter.
I haven't seen that. I've seen lots of sympathy for Latimer (which I share - except for his act) - but I think there's a huge distinction between difference of opinion as to how, or whether someone should be punished, and whether [b]what he did was right[/b].
Because if what he did was [b]right[/b], then it will and should be repeated.
I have heard [b]no one[/b] say that, and I'm glad I haven't.
quote:
Isn't arguing that he shouldn't be punished the same as supporting this "right"? Lots of people don't think he should have been punished.
No. Arguing against incarceration does not mean that a person is arguing against having consequences for actions which harm indviduals. I just think that prison is the least effective way of dealing with crime.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Just name one person who has said either:
1. Latimer was right to kill his daughter.
[/b]
My reading of the posts in this thread is that some are approving of the act, others only mildly disapproving, but I won't speak for others on this specific question. Certainly the Globe letter is clearly approving and even explicitly says his actions should be repeated.
quote:
Originally posted by Draco:
[b]My reading of the posts in this thread is that some are approving of the act, others only mildly disapproving, but I won't speak for others on this specific question. Certainly the Globe letter is clearly approving and even explicitly says his actions should be repeated.[/b]
I'm going to harp on this, because I think it's important.
[b]No one[/b] in this thread has said they "are approving of the act". Where do you get that?
As for the letter to the Globe, I don't know who wrote it, and if that's one person in Canada speaking for herself, that's fine.
I believe the stand which the courts took on Latimer has helped people to understand the difference between euthanasia (which I support, when free and informed) - and "putting someone out of their misery", which is murder.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I'm going to harp on this, because I think it's important.
[b]No one[/b] in this thread has said they "are approving of the act". Where do you get that?
[/b]
Perhaps I'm wrong and reading what isn't there. In the course of this debate over the years, this is far from the first time I've heard the sentiment of the Globe letter expressed.
My brother says that the people who attend Latimer's vigils are creepy. A lot of them are aperentally "pro life" fudamentalists.
[ 08 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
quote:
No one in this thread has said they "are approving of the act".
Of course not it's illegal to kill someone even if they are suffering.
It is is legal to use euthanisia on animals who are suffering and I hope one day it becomes legal here.
Assisted suicide is not a crime in some European countries, including Belgium, Germany and Switzerland.
Agreed there is a problem where it is impossible to have an informed decision but I think medically and with the family one can surmise that the person is in great pain and the pain should be relieved.
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
[b]
Assisted suicide is not a crime in some European countries, including Belgium, Germany and Switzerland.[/b]
Sorry to keep repeating, but I think clarity is important on this issue.
I fully support assisted suicide. I totally condemn the murder of Tracy Latimer.
quote:
[b]Agreed there is a problem where it is impossible to have an informed decision but I think medically and with the family one can surmise that the person is in great pain and the pain should be relieved.[/b]
Maybe. But Latimer didn't even consult with Tracy's mother, let alone any medical experts.
You know, I just realized - what is this doing in "rabble news features"? I'm moving this to the "news" forum since this doesn't appear to be referring in any way to a rabble news item.
