because handicapped children had the same rights under the law that other children had, and the state and society would not treat them as having less status or dignity, they also noted in the final paragraph of the decision that the Parliament might want to consider modifying existing law to provide new sentencing criteria for "mercy killings" (Mitchell A1).
The idea of mercy killings, or active or passive euthanasia, seems to be a divisive one that social institutions, such as Parliament, seem to be unable to resolve to the satisfaction of all parties. Patrick Nagle noted that the Canadian medical Association debated the ethics of the issue in 1993, but could not come to any final conclusions. He also reported several recent incidents similar to that of the Latimer case in which individuals actively, or passively, assisted the suicide of an individual (A4).
Yet, the prosecution in the case, the trial judge, and the appellate court judges all agreed that Canadian criminal law, at present, cannot allow for exceptions based on the intention of the action, or one's own feelings about the motivation of the individual on trial. In other words, compassion or mercy is not a grounds for defense in current criminal law. Murder is simply murder.
In addition, although there was widespread support among the general public for Latimer's action, and feeling that it was indeed compassionate or merciful, one group clearly disagreed with that action and made a st
...