Robert Latimer Case Ethics the Robert Latimer

Robert Latimer Case

Ethics

The Robert Latimer case details the tragic situation of a father caring for a severely disabled child pushed to his breaking point. After witnessing the suffering of his daughter Tracy through numerous invasive and minimally effective procedures, Latimer eventually decided to take his child's life (Eckstein 1995). For doing so, he was convicted of homicide and although the case was tried in 1995, it still presents a number of troubling ethical challenges to medical ethicists today.

From a deontological or Kantian point-of-view, or the notion that one must behave as if setting a moral law for all time, Latimer's actions are immoral if it is assumed that intentional killing is always wrong, particularly of a disabled person who is not in full possession of his or her ability to determine if he or she is happy or not. A Kantian would ask the question -- if Latimer is allowed to take the life of a disabled person and decide what constitutes a worthwhile life, what is to stop other persons from doing the same thing. However, from a utilitarian point-of-view, a very different conclusion might be drawn: from a 'macro' societal perspective, the medical resources devoted to Tracy were considerable yet offered no measurable improvement to her quality of life. Although Tracy appeared happy, she was in considerable pain at all times, causing distress to herself as well as to her loved ones. The pain caused by Tracy's existence outweighed any pleasures based upon a cost-benefit analysis.

Kantian and utilitarian ethics often seem far too rigid and cold-blooded for most ethical decision-makers. Another approach is that of virtue ethics, which stresses that honing a good character with good values, produces good ethical results. From this perspective, Latimer was clearly trying to act in the best interests of his daughter. He and his wife had raised Tracy at home, fed her and changed her every day, and did everything to cater to her many needs. They taxed the resources of modern medical science to try to improve her quality of life, but to no avail. Given that Latimer's actions arose from a place of love, his decision is not immoral and does not set a precedent for the wanton destruction of the disabled by uncaring individuals.

Of course, for some people, certain ethical actions are simply wrong because a particular moral creed 'says so.' For example, certain Christian sects forbid any type of mercy killing because it is viewed as playing God. There is also the notion of 'Natural Law' or that certain actions violate natural law, in this case the obligation of the parent to support the life of the child. But vs. The universalizing of Natural Law theory, a more commonly-used theory is that of social contract theory (SCT) which holds that "morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well" (Social contract theory, n.d.). Social contract theory suggests that persons give over certain liberties to the state in exchange for security: in this instance, the ability to decide whether a child should live or die based upon the parent's estimations of her quality of life, versus the state which categorically prohibits such behavior for the larger good of the community.