Thursday, December 06, 2007

I'm stumped to why Robert Latimer was denied parole. Okay, they claim he hasn't shown enough remorse. But really, it isn't as if he has another severely disabled child whose suffering he might end. What harm do the powers-that-be expect him to inflict? This sounds like a case of sour grapes, of 'power-over' in one of its ugliest forms.


Janet Vickers said...

I agree. Thanks for commenting on this.

Reading various letters in the papers, it seems some think he killed her just because she was disabled, and others are aware that he what he was trying to end was her suffering. We need more media spotlight on the conditions of life among those who have little access to compassionate medical solutions, and less self-righteousness.

We need pharmaceutical companies to deal with these rare cases where living is so painful, even if there is little profit to be made.

hg said...

This, written by Ian Mulgrew in the Vancouver Sun, seems to cover a lot of territory:

"If Latimer is in need of more 'counselling,' he could have obtained that at home where he will live for the rest of his life under supervision.
There is an unrelated judgment from the Supreme Court that says 'a liberal and humane criminal law cannot hold people to the strict obedience of laws in emergency situations where normal human instincts . . . overwhelmingly impel disobedience . . . such acts are still wrongful, but in the circumstances are excusable. Praise is indeed not bestowed, but pardon is.'"

Mulgrew goes on to point out two websites of interest: