Cases

__**Case One:**__

@http://canadianmedicaljournal.ca/cgi/content/abstract/156/10/1405 - (Book page 180)


 * __Case Two:__**

[]

The most controversial euthanasia case in Canada occurred after Robert Latimer had killed his disabled 12-year-old daughter Tracy in 1993 by placing her in the family truck and then piping exhaust fumes into it. Evidence showed that Tracy had a severe form of cerebral palsy, and could not walk, talk or feed herself. She had suffered considerable pain; Mr. Latimer told the police that “his priority was to put her out of her pain.”

Mr. Latimer was charged with first-degree murder, convicted of second-degree murder by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for ten years. He subsequently lost an appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. However, in February 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear a further appeal; and in June 1996, the original Crown prosecutor was charged with attempting to obstruct justice through jury tampering. In February 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial for Mr. Latimer because of the allegations of jury tampering.

After a new trial, Mr. Latimer was again found guilty of second-degree murder in late 1997. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Latimer’s lawyer argued that he should be given a “constitutional exemption,” or that the judge should find the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in the circumstances, and therefore a violation of Mr. Latimer’s rights under the //Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms//. On 1 December 1997, in a decision that surprised most legal commentators, the sentencing judge found that a ten-year sentence would indeed be “grossly disproportionate” to the offence. He sentenced Mr. Latimer to two years less a day, half of which would be served in a provincial jail and half on his farm.

On appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirmed its earlier decision, and substituted the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, noting that it is always “open to Parliament to modify the existing law by appropriate legislation that establishes sentencing criteria for ‘mercy’ killing.” The Supreme Court of Canada granted Mr. Latimer leave to appeal on the grounds of whether the defence of necessity should have been left to the jury, whether the trial judge should have informed the jury that Mr. Latimer had the legal right to decide to commit suicide for his daughter as her surrogate decision-maker, and whether the minimum sentence for murder is cruel and unusual punishment in these circumstances contrary to the //Charter//. In January 2001, the Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. It did, however, note that section 749 of the //Criminal Code// provides for the royal prerogative of mercy, which is a matter for the executive, not the courts, to consider.

In February 2008, the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board granted Mr. Latimer day parole. The Board initially denied his bid for parole in December 2007. Convinced he was sentenced unjustly, Mr. Latimer now wants a new trial.


 * __Case Three:__**

In British Columbia, an inquest was held into the death of a ten-year-old girl with Rett syndrome, a rare neurological disorder that, among other symptoms, can cause severe eating disorders. At the time of her death, Katie Lynn Baker reportedly weighed only 22 pounds, was severely disabled and could not speak, being virtually non-communicative to all except her closest caregivers. According to the coroner’s report, when hospitalization became the only way to save Katie, her mother had sought “the child’s wishes respecting being ‘hooked-up’ or force fed, which [the] mother interpreted as being in the negative.” To isolate Katie from the possibility of non-consensual treatment, she was moved by her mother from the family home to a new location, where she died a few days later.

The jury found that death had been caused by “severe malnutrition” as a result of “inadequate nutritional intake over a period of time caused directly or indirectly by the actions of other persons.” The jury classified the death as “homicide”; however, the presiding coroner noted that “the jury’s ruling of death by homicide precludes any assumption of culpability on the part of any person or agency. In the Coroner’s Inquest, the term is neutral and does not imply fault or blame.”


 * __Case Four:__**

On 6 May 1997, in Halifax, Dr. Nancy Morrison was arrested on a charge of first‑degree murder in the death of a terminally ill cancer patient. Mr. Mills had cancer of the esophagus, which required removing the esophagus and repairing the gap by repositioning the stomach. All possible treatment methods were unsuccessful. By 9 November 1996, there was no hope of recovery. The patient’s family was consulted and, consistent with normal and usual procedures in such circumstances, it was agreed by all those present that active life support would be discontinued.

When Mr. Mills was taken off the ventilator, pain control drugs were administered and increased several times. Mr. Mills remained in substantial distress and pain, gasping for air. One expert witness testified that the level of drugs given to Mr. Mills was in the lethal range and outside of his experience. With Mr. Mills in continuing distress, Dr. Morrison administered first nitroglycerine and then potassium chloride by syringe. Potassium chloride, administered as it was to Mr. Mills, will stop the heart.