Miscarriage of Justice

Miscarriage of Justice

The Robert Latimer Case

When I first heard the news item on CBC, it was like so many others stories that one hears day-by-day coming out of your local radio station, you know, the kind that drift around for 15 seconds or so, and then disappear into the ethers, never to be heard from again. Some farmer, his disabled daughter and something about a pickup truck and a hose – one more isolated little tragedy in God-Knows-Where, Saskatchewan. But this was 1993 and the country was still primed and polarized by the Sue Rodriguez trial only a year earlier so the CBC news item had a ready-made context.

The first ‘hard copy’ came in the form a Maclean’s five-page article with photos that laid out the basic scenario of the tragic events that unfolded on a small farm just outside the town of Wilkie, Saskatchewan. The article detailed the methodology employed by the farmer, whose name was Robert Latimer, to end the life of his severely disabled daughter Tracy. The young girl, twelve years old at the time, suffered from the most extreme and debilitating form of Cerebral Palsy – the medical term is ‘totally involved’, which means that it affects every region the body. Cerebral Palsy is an incurable neurological disorder that develops in the brain during pregnancy (due to a lack of oxygen) and the damage causes the brain’s neurotransmitters to send out faulty signals to the muscles and tendons of the body, instructing them to contract in an extremely erratic fashion. The neurological damage also affects all regions of the brain itself and in Tracy’s case, it was determined she had the mental capacity and cognitive skills of an infant.

The article went on to detail the many operations that had been performed both on and within the young girl’s body, specifically those dealing with scoliosis and the dislocation of Tracy’s left hip. Scoliosis, also a neurological disorder, causes a curvature of the spine, from side-to-side instead of front to back, and oftentimes results in the spine forming a ‘C’ shape which results in a high degree of discomfort and pain for the victim. Tracy’s spine had contracted to about 70 degrees, 90 degrees being where the shoulder bone and the pelvic bone are right angles to each other. To counter this sideways deformation of the vertebra, surgeons had installed a stainless steel rod system, anchored to the pelvic bone and extending to the upper ribcage area in an attempt to force the spine to straighten out. As for Tracy’s left hip, x-rays indicated the ball and socket were damaged beyond repair and could not be saved and another operation had been planned to sever the ball and a large upper section of the femur bone which would have resulted in Tracy having a lifeless and useless left leg.

As I continued to read further into the article, I remember cobbling together a mental picture of Tracy Latimer and the condition she was in during her final days. The scoliosis, the hip problems, her refusal to eat, the incurable and severe nature of the disease, the convulsions and seizures, the futility of her future prospects plus the numerous other operations, including the necessity to sever tendons and ligaments to provide Tracy with some relief from the errant muscle contractions. And, more than anything else, the pain and suffering that she endured in the final days of her life. I felt a big cry coming on and what sent me over the edge was the section of the article that described Tracy’s emaciated state and the fact that she weighed only 34 pounds in the weeks leading up to her death. 34 pounds for a 12 year old human being. I wept.

That night I wrote the song ‘Tracy’s Lullabye’.

Mr. Latimer had been charged with second degree murder and I kept abreast of the proceedings leading up to the 1997 trial and it was shortly after that I came in contact with Supreme Court of Saskatchewan transcripts which included the testimony given by Dr. Anne Dzus, Tracy’s orthopedic surgeon. This is what I had been waiting for since reading the Maclean’s article – a more in-depth, medically-based understanding of what actually happened to Tracy Latimer.

Over the years ‘Tracy’s Lullaby’ has been sung at many concerts and I’ve spoken a bit about the history of the case and it never fails to ignite an emotional outpouring on both sides of the issue. There had been numerous confrontations with people who had summarily written Robert Latimer off as a callous child-killer and it turns out that these folks hadn’t read any of the transcripts and therefore did not know the facts in the case. In the late 90s I got in the habit of carrying around copies of Dr. Dzus’ testimony and would give them out at the concerts and when this book idea began to formulate, I realized it provided a perfect platform for presenting Dr. Dzus’ testimony.

Like other Canadians, I feel the need to speak out about the Robert Latimer case. I’m not a lawyer or a doctor, but I am a concerned citizen who, based on the facts available to me, feels strongly that there was a miscarriage of justice in Mr. Latimer’s ordeal. The incidence of prejudicial conduct among certain members of the judicial and law enforcement communities appear to indicate there was a concerted effort to win a guilty verdict, no matter what – this is not speculation, but documented fact. It was obvious throughout the two trials that Robert Latimer was not afforded the basic constitutional right of being innocent until being proven guilty – instead, according to some, his guilt was a foregone conclusion and the only purpose of the trial was to determine just how long Mr. Latimer would spend in prison. (Section 7 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that those individuals who are charged with a criminal offence be treated fairly – this was supposed to be Robert Latimer’s guaranteed right).

But, there is something else, much more profound and hidden deep underneath the surface of things that needs to be addressed in the Latimer case and that is the question of rights and ethics, specifically, Tracy Latimer’s rights and ethics?

In this juggernaut we call advanced technology, where we have invented every kind of machine conceivable and, in regards to the medical industry, hooked many of them up to our terminally ill patients with the expressed purpose of keeping them alive until we’ve sucked the last drop of existence out of them, is it possible that we have stepped over an ethical line where we begin to violate the rights of the very people we are trying to help? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 12) protects our citizens against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment – can there be any doubt, given the facts of this case, that Tracy Latimer’s Charter Rights were violated? Is it possible that in its rush to judgment, the ‘system’ (including the courts, the governments, the Catholic Church, the police, the medical and pharmaceutical industries, and the lobbyists representing the disabled community) was willing to condemn a helpless and hopeless little girl to ‘hell on earth’, in order to protect and further its own conservative religious-based agenda and the status quo. If anyone thinks the term ‘hell on earth’ is too strong, try imagining what Tracy Latimer’s life would have been like (given the statements by Dr. Dzus) had her father not ended it on that October morning near Wilkie, Saskatchewan.

Perhaps the ‘system’ itself needs to be put on trial – from the Supreme Court of Canada, the governments, the medical industry and religious organizations on down. The Robert Latimer case was a political ‘hot potato’, as was the Sue Rodriguez case that preceded it – nobody wanted to touch it. Ms. Rodriguez came within a whisper of changing the laws concerning ‘death with dignity’ issues – four out of the nine judges on the Supreme Court supported her right to end her life when she became totally incapacitated from the effects of A.L.S. (Lou Gehrig’s Disease). There is little doubt that the Rodriguez case had shell-shocked the ‘system’ and thus had a direct influence on the Supreme Court’s 7-0 decision to convict Robert Latimer.

(Note: The Supreme Court came to its 7-0 decision based largely on its nebulous claim that there was some form of effective pain medication out there somewhere that would not counteract with the powerful medications already present in Tracy’s body – this claim is refutable and conveniently provided the court with an easy way out of a ‘touchy’ situation. Think about it – Tracy Latimer was already in the system, she was surrounded by doctors, nurses, surgeons and all sorts of other medical specialists – if there was a more effective pain medication that existed don’t you think that one of these many health professionals would have known it, found it and administered it to Tracy. Why, all of a sudden, was the onus to provide effective pain medication put on the shoulders of a simple farmer like Robert Latimer)?

(Note: It’s also worthwhile mentioning that in the ensuing years since the 1997 Latimer trial, there have been several high profile cases of mercy killing and euthanasia that have made it onto the national news and, in not a single case has the perpetrator (loved-one) been sent to prison or even charged with second degree murder – go figure. Given the general atmosphere of leniency surrounding these cases one wonders why the ‘system’ decided to gang-up on Mr. Latimer).

If a law, or set of laws need to be amended or adjusted, then we have the mechanisms available to us by which we can effect those changes. Human laws are fallible by their very nature and are subject to amendments from time to time. A number of national polls conducted over the past 10-15 years have consistently indicated that a clear majority of Canadians want to see changes to the laws that will create protections for the basic human right to a more natural and dignified death – why are our courts so reluctant to take on this issue? Our governments appoint judges to the Supreme Court with the specific power to amend laws in order to protect the rights of all Canadians, not just the special interest groups with the loudest voices. Changing these laws will require a Supreme Court with vision, impartiality and a great deal of courage, a Supreme Court willing to take the ‘bull by the horns’, to handle this ‘hottest of potatoes’ and until that happens, Tracy Latimer, Sue Rodriguez and many others like them, will continue to endure unspeakable indignities and needless suffering.

To the 700,000 disabled Canadians I say this; think for yourselves, weigh the facts and the evidence before you make your judgment. Robert Latimer has been out of prison for a number of years now and he has not been running around killing disabled people. According to testimony from the court transcripts he was a caring and loving father to Tracy over the 12 years that they were together – it’s preposterous to suggest that, on that final day, he all of a sudden was transformed into a callous and merciless killer of little children. But there are lobbyists and religious extremists, claiming to represent the disabled community, who have been filling the airwaves with poisonous, fear-mongering statements, such as ‘Robert Latimer was granted early parole – it’s no longer safe for the disabled to sleep at night’ or ‘now it’s open season on the disabled’.

Canada has one of the most progressive and vibrant disabled communities in the world – just look at our involvement in the Para-Olympics – these are athletes who, through many years of dedicated training and hard work, are in better health and more fit than most Canadians. There are vast numbers of disabled Canadians who are intelligent, productive members of our community who enjoy active social lives and a high quality of existence. If one believes the aforementioned fear-mongerers from the special interest groups, now that Robert Latimer has been released on day-parole, he is going to go around trying to hurt or kill disabled people – these types of fear-based reactions are not only irresponsible but dangerous as well.

I wasn’t there that October 24th morning near Wilkie, Saskatchewan – I don’t actually know what happened and no one except Robert Latimer ever will, but based on all the facts presented at the trial, including the sworn statements regarding Mr. Latimer’s character and over-all treatment of Tracy during her brief life, I am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt – I personally feel he did the right thing. I will continue to advocate for a change in the laws that protect the rights of the individual, – whether disabled or not, and who find themselves in extreme and terminal situations – to have a legal option to end their lives if they so wish (I would definitely want to have that option available to myself as well). For extreme cases like Tracy Latimer, whose conditions can deteriorate to the point where they do not have a say in the matter, the legal option and the exercise of their fundamental rights still needs to be available to them. And, it needs to be set up where the parents and/or loved ones – with guidence from the courts – have the last word when it comes to the final decision.

Why I feel confident that laws can be enacted that protect both the rights of the disabled and the rights of the individual is because of the track record of other caring and humane societies, including our American neighbors to the south, who have, with much courage and hard work, already enacted such laws. The laws in Oregon and Washington State are deliberate and stringent, with checks and balances at every turn, providing a high level of surety against abuse and, at the same time, protecting the rights of those with terminal illnesses to have a say in their own destiny. These laws have been in place for years now and there has been clearly no evidence of an ‘open season’ on the disabled – we can come up with a system that protects the rights of all Canadians.

Tracy Latimer was dying – consider the facts; (1) she weighed a mere 34 pounds and had rejected all attempts to feed her; (2) she was in constant pain, and according to Dr. Dzus, that pain would have continued for at least a year after the anticipated hip replacement; (3) Tracy would still continue to require other forms of invasive surgery as her condition continued to deteriorate (this added to all the other operations performed on her over her lifetime); (4) pain medication was not an option because it counter-acted with the anticonvulsant and anti-epileptic drugs already in her system; (5) she had no hope of recovery and the prognosis was that things would only get worse, (6) plus her quality of life was virtually non-existent during the final days. Could all of these factors combined (especially her total rejection of food) have been interpreted as a cry from Tracy that she had had enough and wanted out.

Dennis Lakusta
December, 2011