The case of Robert Lattimer was caused much debate in the news and society as a whole. Lattimer killed his severely disabled daughter Tracy. This case touches on some of the most fundamental philosophical questions of which will be explored in this piece. This entry will not try to point fingers at Lattimer and pass judgment, rather I hope to raise philosophical issues that are relevant to this case.

There is no doubt that Lattimer killed Tracy. He admits it. What gave him the right to kill? According to the justice system and most people- no one did. If it's illegal to kill a person, the Lattimer is guilty. The assumption of the word person is a very big assumption. An abstract view of personhood would claim that human beings are beings that are intelligent, engage in meaningful communication, and are self-sufficient. By this definition, Tracy was not a person. She would be considered to be a non-human, much like a cow or even a slave. All throughout history it is obvious that society does not object to killing on-humans. So it was possible that Lattimer took actions that are condoned by society. On the other hand, disabled persons are "persons". It is illegal to kill persons. If we look back to the definition of "personhood" as above, it is possible that Tracy does, indeed, fit those criteria. Could Tracy experience pleasures, "feelings", and could she think or reason? These are questions that no one can answer. However, Lattimer did.

A derivative of the personhood problem is the question of Tracy's consciousness. By Nietzsche's definition of consciousness, Tracy didn't have it. Nietzsche claims that consciousness is a result of communication between human beings (Nietzsche, 323). Tracy had no form of communication with her parents or anyone else. So, according to Nietzsche, we can conclude that Tracy was not conscious. Pinker would disagree. Consciousness to him doesn't involve language at all. "Despite their isolation from the verbal world, [these languageless people] displayed many abstract forms of thinking" (Pinker, 311). So it is possible, according to Pinker, that Tracy had consciousness, and therefore was a person.

What it means to be a person also brings about discussions about the mind and the body. According to Descartes, there is a sharp division between mind and body. Mind is purely conscious, it takes up no room in space, it can't be divided. The body is matter, which is extension that takes up room, and can be divided infinitely (Gaardner, 240-241). So from this we can say that it doesn't matter if Lattimer killed Tracy's body, as the body is a physical thing that can be killed. However, Lattimer did nothing to Tracy's mind. Tracy still exists in mind only, not form. However, if one believes that everything in the world is purely physical (Physicalism) (184), then Tracy is dead (in the purist sense of the word). Tracy will never return. Her identity was a part of her body and now they both cease to exist. Lattimer, no doubt, wishes that his daughter is in a "better place", a place where her mind is free and not confined to her "useless" body. Lattimer might believe that his daughter's body reduced her quality of life.

The problem of determining the quality of life of a person is then brought up. From Lattimer's actions, I think it's safe to say that he believed that Tracy didn't have much of a life. This conclusion about quality of life is directly related to the definition of personhood. That is, life for a human is intelligent, communicative and self-sufficient. Nagel would totally disagree. To him, life is good. Everything in life is good because it is a part of something magnificent. Life is something that is sacred. Therefore, death is bad because it is not life. See, for Nagel, a "bad" life is still worth living because, the alternative is to not live. But as stated before, living is something good (Nagel 467-471). Life in the physical sense must be preserved at all costs. So, death is something we all try to avoid, even though it is inevitable. So at what point is death inevitable?

According to the American Medical Association Guidelines, the "cessation of extraordinary means in the face of irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, is the decision of the patient and/or family" (Steinbock, 486). So was death inevitable for Tracy? Yes and no. Yes, in that if she stopped taking her medications and if her treatments/operations ceased, she would die. No, in the sense that if she continued with all of the above things, she would live. The issue of euthanasia comes from all of this. If death was imminent (as Lattimer might have believed), then he did do the right thing by killing her instead of letting her die "naturally". According to Rachels, there is no moral difference between killing and "letting die" (Rachels, 481).

Conversely, Steinbock would say that the cessation of extraordinary means is not the same as letting someone die naturally. If Lattimer killed her, the cause of death was Lattimer. If she was left to die, the cause of death was her sickness (Steinbock 485).

The medical community would all agree that the preservation of life by any means is important. Thus, death was not imminent for Tracy. So did her father act selfishly?

Of course he Lattimer was selfish! Who isn't? Lattimer did what he did because he thought that it would be best for everyone involved. It is quite obvious that his decision was a tough one, and one that he'll probably never forget. However, was Lattimer acting selfishly in a bad way? That is, was his best intentions in mind? Did Lattimer have a responsibility towards Tracy? He did, because when Tracy was born him and his wife chose to keep Tracy and look after her. So, the only thing that should be on the parent's mind is the protection of the life of their child. From that, Lattimer did have responsibility towards Tracy. But, it is possible that Lattimer did do Tracy a "favour". If she was in terrible pain, maybe he knew that she wanted to die. Maybe, he loved her so much that he couldn't stand to see his daughter in such pain. On the other hand, if he was helping his daughter, then he would be helping himself. Love for someone else, is just love for one's self (Butler, 571). To look at it from another perspective, Lattimer surely knew that he would have to pay the consequences for his actions. Thus, he put himself on the line for his child's happiness. It should also be noted that Lattimer made sure that his wife was not in any way involved. Does this sound like the actions of a selfish man? Arguably, he was selfish, and he acted out his frustrations by killing his daughter, thus ending his frustrations forever.

What would compel such frustrations? Probably the sense of pain that his daughter must have endured. However, did Tracy feel this pain? Doctors agree that any normal human being would be under tremendous pain if subjected to the same treatments. However, if this was Tracy's life (one filled with pain), couldn't she have gotten used to it? If pain was all she knew, couldn't it have been her sense of normal?

Although Lattimer's case is purely a personal act, it's repercussions will be heard throughout all of society, as people reevaluate and debate their thoughts on what a "good life" is and what it means to be a person. At least that's one good that will come out of all of this. However, there is still one question that must be addressed before any of the other ones are even asked. It is: Can we as a society truthfully judge Lattimer? Can we say that he was right or wrong?