GIVING effective, ethical health care to people can be difficult.
That’s particularly true when the only possible results are bad and people have to pick the “least worst” option.
So I continue to be haunted by the lives of Tracy Latimer and her father, Robert. I believe they paid dearly for failures by the medical system and the justice system.
When Tracy Latimer was born, something went terribly wrong. Her brain was deprived of crucial oxygen. She ended up with a mental age somewhere around six months.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
She couldn’t communicate effectively; people had to guess what she was thinking or feeling. She suffered repeated physical seizures many times a day. Her body became twisted because of her condition.
Doctors, trying to do the “least worst” thing for her, did several surgeries to release muscles and tendons, and put steel rods in her back to straighten it.
Through all this, the only pain medication she received was basic acetaminophen. Anything stronger would have interfered with the medications to control her seizures. It was as effective as trying to stop an elephant with a fly swatter. Testimony at trial showed she was in extreme, chronic, unrelieved pain. The only other option might have been a medicated coma.
Medical people played God with Tracy’s life. They did the best they could in a losing battle. Yet I believe they failed her.
Parents are expected to care for their children. In any other circumstance, had Robert Latimer allowed Tracy to be in as much pain as she was, he could have been charged with child neglect or abuse.
Being a conscientious and loving parent, Latimer did what he thought he needed to do. He acted to end his daughter’s pain.
In Europe this situation might have been handled much more effectively, according to a recent television program. It even showed a man taking a dose of terminal medication.
Because of his actions, Latimer was changed with murder. At the trial, the jury didn’t receive information members requested. Normally, people making decisions need to consider the consequences of their actions. That is not true for juries.
The matter came to the Supreme Court of Canada. Courts have to balance the facts and the law. Written judgment from the court shows that key facts were apparently missed.
When Latimer applied for early parole, he was denied. He was told he had not yet developed “sufficient insight and understanding” of his action. With respect, it’s the parole board panel that seems to lack insight and understanding. Once again, the legal system failed Latimer.
Canada’s Parliament has continued to show lack of insight, understanding and courage in handling this matter. Meanwhile, there have been a number of cases of pain-ending action by individuals. Latimer is the only one in prison for murder.
Other provinces and courts have handled situations differently. Until the law comes to a clearer understanding of these circumstances, we may see more Robert Latimers.
Rob Brown is a former agricultural writer and broadcaster now doing studies in ethics. He can be reached at moral.economy@sasktel.net.
