Tracy and Éloïse
by Dagmar Gontard-Zelinkova

October 24th 1993. A quiet morning on the farm. Robert Latimer and his daughter are alone. Tracy's life has been a succession of medical interventions and painful recoveries. Close to the age of 13 in calendar terms, her body is about 97 in medical terms. She has mental capacity of a 4-months old baby. She weighs 38 pounds, sufferes 6-8 seizures daily, has to be spoon-fed, is in almost constant horrible pain. She is quadriplegic. She has a steel rod wired to her spine, which penetrates into her pelvis area. She is scheduled for a hip surgery, which would remove the upper part of her thigh…
Robert Latimer takes his daughter into his arms and carries her to his pick-up truck…
The event immediately catches the attention of the media – the image of a father, propping his 13 years old daughter up in his pick-up and piping in exhaust fumes, what a sensational story!
In 1994, Robert Latimer is found guilty of second-degree murder, a crime for which the mandatory sentence is life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years. Latimer appeals but his conviction is upheld in 1995. Another trial takes place in 1997 because there had been jury tampering before the first trial. In December 1997, Judge Ted Noble recognizes Latimer's act as one of "compassionate homicide" and grants him a constitutional exemption. In 1998, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal sets aside constitutional exemption and upholds the mandatory sentence. Latimer appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upholds life sentence. On January 18th 2001, Robert Latimer goes to prison. Ever since, across the country, a wide controversy continues: Guilty? Not guilty? A cold-blooded murder? A compassionate homicide? A premeditated killing? A mercy killing? An act of euthanasia? Clearly, confusion reigns supreme with all these terms that are popping up in 10-second sound bites of the media.

Time to pause and clarify.
The common denominator in these ideas is human intervention to cause death. In short: killing. Killing is usually punishable by law. There is no mention in the Criminal Code of "mercy killing", of "compassionate homicide" or of "euthanasia." Many of Robert Latimer's supporters blame Canadian judges and the Supreme Court for the cruel and unjust sentence imposed on him. Yet, in the absence of any amendment to the existing law, Judge Noble's "constitutional exemption" shows the difficulty in which the justice system is caught when judges' hands are tied by imposed minimum mandatory sentences.
In 1995, a special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide unanimously recommended that the punishment for murder be reduced in cases where there is the essential element of compassion or mercy. The Committee acknowledged that it felt the need for a special category of compassionate homicide only because of the mandatory minimum sentences for murder. This is not solely a Canadian problem. Other nations are struggling with the same dilemma. In France, for instance, the controversy about euthanasia has been going on, without any significant change in the criminal code, for some forty years. Other countries, including Sweden and Switzerland, have amended their laws. Two other nations, Netherlands and Belgium, and the American state of Oregon went a step further when they legalized euthanasia. There has been no "slippery slope" in these countries, contrary to predictions of euthanasia's opponents. Quite the reverse: the strict conditions serve to control the practice of euthanasia.
Among the arguments against Robert Latimer is the "sanctity of life." Some believers say that we received our life from God and that we have to carry on with it until he decides to call us back to him. But then, can we apply ancient scripts to the medicalised dying of our time? If Tracy had been born some two thousand years ago she would not have lived. She would not have lived even if born a century ago. If she lived almost 13 years, it's not because of God's will, but because we, humans, have taken it upon ourselves to maintain her life.
How long should we prolong life? Under the influence of our new therapeutic techniques, the modern death is stretching out, dismembering herself, striking separately and successively different parts of the body. A modern death is no longer a natural one. Scientific progress has left us with the question that is expressed in concrete terms of surgical interventions, chemical treatments, intubations etc. How far should we go? How long should we oppose death? We don't have the answers. We are trapped. Progress in the scientific field has not been followed by progress in bioethical field. We are floating in juridical and ethical void.
Robert and Tracy Latimer's drama lies within this void. It is not solely a Canadian issue, but a universal one. It concerns our human society as a whole.
Despite this universal aspect of Robert Latimer's tragic story, there is a Canadian specificity to it as regards the punishment imposed on him: the harshness of the sentence. It is due, without doubt, to the association of the case with the disabled. How did it happen? Because of the media. Journalists under pressure to use compact wordings have described Robert Latimer as a man "who killed his disabled daughter." The wording became a label. Given the horror with which the killing of children and of vulnerable defenseless individuals is regarded in our society, it is quite understandable why Robert Latimer has been perceived by some as a cruel selfish murderer.
It is important to stress that this tunnel vision is not shared by all the members of the disabled community. Countless testimonies of sympathy for Robert Latimer, from that very community, appeared in the media. At the Vigils, organized across the country by the association Friends of Robert Latimer, many members of the disabled community showed support for Robert Latimer. Among the speakers at the Ottawa Vigil, in May 2001, were parents of a disabled girl who died at the age of 12. The lives of Éloïse Stone and Tracy Latimer were astonishingly parallel. Both girls endured the same debilitating symptoms of severe cerebral palsy. They both had loving parents who adored them and cared for them for many long years. Yet, as the years passed, the girls' condition only deteriorated. At the age of twelve, their stories drastically differed. Éloïse's parents, with the support of a medical team, came to the decision that they would no longer force her to live. There would be no more iron bars in her spine, no more operations on her hip and pelvis, no more force feeding through a tube to her stomach, no more intensive medication which would only prolong her agony and suffering.
Éloïse died of pneumonia, at home, in her parents' arms.
Éloïse's mother dedicated the book she wrote about her daughter to Laura and Robert Latimer. Éloïse's father said at the vigil: "I am as guilty as Robert Latimer; I did what he did, but I let something else do it."
Robert Latimer did what he did. For some his act will remain a murder. "Let's shut him up!" they will claim. For others such a simplistic conclusion is not the solution. Robert Latimer's drama is not unique. There are so many cases where people are caught in the same tragic situation. An ocean of suffering that breaks against our taboos, our prejudices, our hypocrisy and our fears. We all are guilty. Crucifying Robert Latimer will not save us. Although the Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Latimer acted out of concern for his daughter's suffering, it felt unable to overturn his sentence with no chance for parole for ten years. However, the Supreme Court did comment that application of the government's prerogative of mercy would be appropriate. January 18th marked three years that Robert Latimer has been in prison.

Time to pause and think. Time to extend our compassion to this man. Time to end his calvary..