Psychology Today on The Danger of the Wolf Pack Mentality

Post Reply New Topic

You assume you would have been conscious of being executed. If you don't have a clue it's happening and no prior knowledge of existence, does it really matter?

I think death at that point would have been best for me, but not necessarily society.

I think what you've done in your post is reinterpreted the article to shift the perspective expressed. The author didn't restrict what she was saying in the ways you have tried to restrict her words at all. She is expressing sentiments similar to those I have expressed in the past on this forum, and that many disability advocates have expressed over the past several years. She does talk about psychopaths in her article, but a lot of what she writes about is not strictly done by psychopaths.

She is pointing to a systemic, widespread devaluation of disabled people's lives. Not a few lone killers here or there. The same thing I've argued before, and the same thing other posters have tried to disprove by shifting the goalposts. Now that an actual professional whose expertise lies in this sort of thing is saying the same thing, her expertise is narrowed down so as to reinterpret her expertise to exclude much of what she discussed. Why?

A major criticism from individuals in the democratic party is that the current health care reform act provides the same power to the private sector insurance companies and perhaps a larger monopoly that they had before the act was put into place. This is government enforced health care, not government run healthcare. But, for those that face the potential consequence of life or death, dependent on their coverage that they currently may lose because of the attempt at reform, their main concern is staying covered and living.

The small bill health care reform, was a plan from 2009, that has been abandoned by republicans. They have put forth no full scale plan for health care reform, and have downplayed the significance of those who are partially disabled that will lose their coverage necessary for their continued health, through guaranteed coverage and extended coverage to age 26, because a few companies have provided a promise that they will continue to insure some. The Republican plan is to repeal all of the current health care reform plan, and institute small changes as time goes by.

That's not going to help the issue of those that lose their health care, whom are partially disabled, that require it for chronic healthcare problems for survival.

If the Republicans are successful in overturning the legislation through their challenge of the law through the Supreme court they report they are in no rush to start the process of reform until after the next election in 2013. Meanwhile reality is tick, tock, tick, tock, for those those whom are partially disabled whom lose their health coverage among those insurance companies, that legally will have the right to drop those who are currently covered.

It's always been a life or death situation for some, with chronic health problems, but that is no concern of theirs, the concern is the political will, regardless of how it affects actual human beings whom are partially disabled, with no other way of coverage, if it were not for the current extended benefits of health care reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/gop-health-care-plan_n_1603475.html



The Republicans had 8 years under Bush to create health care reform, and absolutely no effort was made. If any effort is made now, it will be because of the precedent set by the current administration. Even for those that continue to keep their coverage, because some larger higher profit insurance want to maintain good PR, that would not have been possible without the administrations current efforts.

There are potentially millions of children up to the age of 19, that this effects for guaranteed coverage, because of preexisting conditions, on their parents insurance policies, as well as potential hundreds of thousands of others, that have gained coverage to age 26. Not to mention the other millions of individuals that would have gained coverage by the year 2014, if the current plan had stayed in effect.

While psychopathic killings of the disabled is a real concern, that should not be minimized, politicians had a choice whether or not to pursue the court action to take the coverage away from these individuals through repeal of the reform. As per the topic article that suggests that the psychopathic killers of the disabled couldn't put their feet into the shoes of their victims, this is also the case for those who support the repeal of the healthcare reform act, whom are not young and suffering from disabilities and associated chronic illness.

As far as Autism goes, it is definitely a specific issue for that disorder, for insurance companies, that would no longer have to insure those with the disorder as a preexisting one among insurance companies that do not continue on with the current healthcare reform policies.

Good intent of those that would like to eventually see some other form of health care reform, is not going to save the lives of those individuals that rely on their current coverage for survival, that may lose it. The result for those that require continued coverage for survival in the present that lose their lives because of the potential repeal of health care are as dead as any killing done by a psychopath. The difference could be a slow torturous death of suffering without required treatment, for chronic health conditions.

Republicans do understand the fallout of their actual worse nightmare if the plan succeeds and people eventually succumb to illness without required medical treatment, because of the effort to repeal healthcare reform, and it is reported in the media. They can ask insurance companies to retain coverage but they won't be able to require anything, without the enforcement by law.

That's a risky proposition for those that require coverage for survival, as well as a risky proposition for the Republicans if people can't hang on to life without coverage until after the next election.

There are many people out there much more worried about this than potential psychopaths. Whether intentional or not it is a wolf pack mentality for those that are not concerning themselves with the reality that people are going to suffer, if the healthcare reform act is repealed. The only responsible action is to ensure that coverage currently in effect, stays in place, through quick legal action, if the Supreme Court rules against the Health Care Reform Act.

The republicans do not appear to be concerned about that until after the election; it is likely that the democrats would propose legislation to keep those elements in effect, but not likely that any compromise would be met. The fate of those currently covered are at the hands of the Supreme Court, at this point in time.

And, in part it is the advocacy efforts of Autism Speaks that is responsible for those covered by extremely expensive treatment for behavioral intervention, in many states. They are not an enemy of substance to any autistic individual, and have no evidenced place, associated in a conversation about psychopathic killers. Individuals with Autism have much more to fear from republican efforts to end their insurance coverage.

And the concern is similar, for those whom are currently covered under their parents insurance companies, that may no longer have coverage in the next several weeks, if the Supreme Court overturns the law in a few days.

The Republicans have made a grand effort, but it's likely per many legal experts that the law will stay in place as is. After this, Republicans will have to potentially dirty their own hands, per actual voting actions that would remove individual's life-saving coverage to repeal the act.

While there will likely be a lot of talk in the next few months, action is highly unlikely. There were some Democrats willing to lose their seats in office to pass health care reform, but that egalitarian spirit does not appear to be quite the same among the viewpoints of Republicans in office.

I imagine there is not much directed ill-intent for people to actually lose their health coverage, because for some it doesn't seem real unless it is a reality in their own household.

Psychopathic killers, by definition are rare, and not part of what is considered wolf pack mentality. The author is an expert on serial killing, criminal profiling, and psychopathy, not an expert on the challenges of the disabled, potentially dangerous to their health and welfare.

She chooses to suggest in her summary quoted below that individuals involved in murdering the disabled are psychopaths, in part, because of limited media sources of individuals that could have potentially been psychopaths that murdered disabled individuals, through the expression of no shame or remorse. There are numerous factors related to every murder case, but the murder of the disabled, and expression of rational or irrational reasons leading to the murders, are not ones specific to psychopathy, as she suggests in her summary.

She goes further in the implication that those that she suspects will not agree with her article are potential psychopaths themselves, per the environment of the readers of psychology today.

She is an expert in criminal profiling, and she has determined this through those two factors of psychopathy per what she has seen in limited media reports. But she has no evidence that anyone is a psychopath, above and beyond those directly involved in the diagnosis of individuals involved in the murders of the disabled.

She is certainly in no position to make a suggestion that what appears to be that many in the environment of those reading the article are not going to like the article because of an implicated higher potential element of psychopathy that exists among the readership environment.

There is a wolf-pack mentality among the general public against the disabled and the disadvantaged, but it is not evidenced as a highly associated factor per the rare element of psychopathy, that she profiles in her work or outlier elements of academics associated with medical ethics that have pursued euthanasia of the disabled as a philosophical argument that is not supported among the overwhelming majority of the general public in the US .

The factors of distance and lack of concern from those in need of help from society are much more dangerous than the two factors that she addresses, that have received recent media attention.

Removing healthcare for the partially disabled that depend on it for survival, is a major concern that some of those same individuals that rightly dismiss widespread euthanasia of the disabled, are known to promote in the same breath.

Euthanasia of the disabled is an highly unlikely element per the demographic of Americans that hold an opinion on this issue, as well as the rare element of psychopathy, however the loss of healthcare is a real potential, as I addressed per the lack of concern of others, for the actual hardships that many face, crucial to their survival.

In addressing the wolf-pack mentality of some in the general public toward the disabled and disadvantaged, she is also addressing potentially tens of millions of people, who consider political will more important that the lives of the partially disabled whom have chronic health conditions, as evidenced in the long standing opposition of a large percentage of US society, for decades, to the equal opportunity to access the most basic of requirements in life for a disabled individual, healthcare.

And that's just a relatively small aspect of the phenomenon per the other requirements of subsistence in life, that some would like to remove from society if given the opportunity, from those that are partially disabled, chronically ill, and disadvantaged.

One certainly can't reasonably avoid these factors per the wolf-pack attitude among some in the general public toward the partially disabled, chronically ill and disadvantaged. It's more complicated than psychopathy, murder, and euthanasia.

And these negative issues of concern have nothing significant to do with the Autism Speaks organization, that is in part, responsible for bringing needed behavioral interventions and accommodations to many children across the country diagnosed with autism, through their advocacy efforts associated with state legislation that now requires broader insurance coverage in many states for individuals with autism.

what makes you sure of that,did he say that about himself

Back to the article, her strong views on right and wrong lead her to the study of murder?

That is what she claims, and in what seems biased, she writes of women convicted, and defending themselves. Their claim that they were driven to it over years of having their lives taken to serve another, fall on deaf ears with her, they have no right to put up a defense, bring up possibly mittigating factors. For her, those that kill lose all human rights.

I would not be surprised if she was an expert witness in dealth penality cases. This sounds like an ad. Caregiver Killers Must Die!

The wolfpack here is the Jury, who does have to side with one view or the other.

Our reality is very few are convicted of murder one. There was a list on WP a while back, parents killing their children, and the most a jury would go for was manslaughter, and two years.

She does not look at the larger view, is just Rabid for there is no defense.

She is the same as the Doc out west who no matter how guilty, will claim that the killer was autistic, for $50,000 plus expenses, plus trial time.

She does not mention DNR, giving free paitent controlled access to very powerful pain cocktails, and a doctors statment, "Well, you are not going to get any better." It is part of our culture that the family and medical profession leaves the exit door open.

Our legal system requires a jury vote to convict. Starving a child to death the most a jury would vote for was child abuse. A jury will always judge not by the letter of the law but by the act. They do have to walk in others shoes, visit crime scenes, view evidence, look at the whole picture, and Casey did go free.

This bloodthirsty rant only fits as an expert witness called by the DA.

Death is not political, it is universial. More are caused by automobiles, and those are called accidents. Medical errors cause as many as murder, or more, and no one gets out alive.

We will never lose the lifeboat or battlefield mentality, the most injured get the least care, those who care will preserve are helped, and those slightly injured are left to take care of themselves.

When Betty who stayed home to care for her mother who has claimed Cancer for seventy years, finally feeds mom some arsnic, she might get convicted of something, and a month house arrest. The whole town knew, and made up the jury.

More likely, test would not be done, or results lost, and there would be no trial. Like the father in Texas who punched someone for having sex with his five year old daughter. The Grand Jury voted the man was too dumb to live in Texas.

We already spend most of Medicare on the last six months of life, which does deny better medical care for most people.

We cannot afford the degree of medical care that will keep everyone from dying.

A small group uses up most services, so is it humane to deny treatment for those who could benefit, and go on to lead a long and productive life?

We are $15 Trillion past Broke. Something will happen.

My own view is give everyone the best of food, education, medical care until they are 21, then push them off the end of a dock. It would be the cheapest, and would lead to a healthy society.

By saying that, you're implying that those of us who do feel our lives are worth something don't matter: that all of us should have been aborted. Is that your intention?

But what she writes in her article is largely true. That she is likely wrong about these individuals being psychopaths (taking your statement at face value) does not in fact refute the overall claims she made.

You had no problems choosing a singular case to make the false claim that veterans with PTSD who commit murder are often sympathized with*, but you're quick to call out what you see as a similar dynamic in this author's article when she is making a lot of statements that are not in fact dependent upon her interpretation of these murderers as psychopaths.

To be blunt, arguing that she's wrong about something that falls under her expertise because she's an expert is not a very convincing position to take. Hence my statement that you're shifting goalposts, just as you did in the previous conversation.

* One veteran with PTSD murdered some people on the other side of the world in a war, and some people in the US sympathized with him. If you look up stories on veterans in the US with PTSD who murder their families in the US, they receive little sympathy and are frequently described as such things as "ticking time bombs." You also ignored the fact that jingoism and racism likely had a lot to do with your favored example receiving sympathy. Or in other words, the case was more like that of carers who murder their disabled charges than it was a refutation.

You appear to be an example of the "wolf pack mentality" the author of the article is talking about.

Incidentally, we are not $15 trillion past broke because of government assistance provided to people with disabilities. We are $15 trillion past broke because of funding one war for the sake of revenge and one war justified by falsified claims about WMDs. We are also $15 trillion past broke because the US Treasury secretly spent trillions of dollars bailing banks out before the economy reached the recession point and the financial sector received a public bailout.

It is fairly vicious to suggest that disabled people should pay the price for criminal behavior by politicians and businessmen, especially while trying to blame disabled people for the outcome of that criminal behavior.

The consideration given to mental health problems associated with combat veterans, and associated court cases where violent and non-violent crimes are committed is a larger issue not specific to one combat veteran, and evidenced as such below.

You are taking my words out of context, I said in that thread as quoted below that no one suggests that the murderer had a right to kill, but empathy and sympathy is often expressed for an horrific situation that might have been avoided if the person had received appropriate support for their chronic stress/mental health issues. The problems of veterans with mental health conditions that do not receive appropriate treatment, is a well known issue of concern in the US, that is an identified factor that has been associated with violent behavior among those combat veterans.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt194758.html



Here is another example from earlier in the Year where a combat veteran killed his wife and baby, along with a failed attempt at suicide. There are 148 comments per his sentencing. No one suggests he had a right to kill his wife and children, but many blame the military and the lack of mental health resources as a factor in the killing, among those whom commented.

This is not unlike comments, in some articles associated with the killing of the disabled that suggest that factors of lack of support services from society played a role in the overall horrific situation per the crime of murder. As, well as many who argue back at those comments, just as is seen in other cases where a similar controversial issue like this is discussed on the internet.

My point in the other thread, was that it is common among human beings to try to find reasons for behavior among human beings that is disturbing. The killing of a family member disabled or not, is an extremely disturbing reality of life, and if there is any factor, in part, that can be established that led to the crime, other than capricious reality, on average, human beings will find it and talk about it, if it is of interest to them.

One sees this in almost all disturbing human behavior, not withstanding the recent "zombie attacks". If people in large numbers start attacking each other and eating each other for no apparent reason, that would be a scary world to live in, so most everyone is going to look for factors associated with that behavior other than capricious reality, in rare incidences that have been highlighted in the media, referred to with hyperbolic language like the Zombie Apocalypse, even though less than a handful of the incidences have been reported.

The Author of the article in Psychology today is using a similar hyperbolic tactic in suggesting that the killing of the disabled is a psychopathic led phenomenon. That would be a neat tidy theory, if it could be evidenced, but it can't, so I can only surmise that it is an hyperbolic opinion, strongly colored by that person's life experience, in a field of expertise focused in part on psychopathy.



http://www.adn.com/2012/01/20/2274354/lynch-traumatized-by-time-in-afghanistan.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/14/nation/la-na-ptsd-20110915/2



The author of the psychology today article decided to associate psychopathy as a defining factor in her wolf pack mentality theory, associated against the disabled. She made that clear in her summary, almost in an accusatory way toward her readers that might disagree with her statement, as quoted earlier and specifically in the statement quoted below as well:



Her area of expertise is not among the rare cases of individuals that have been tried for killing the disabled, it is among serial killers, criminal profiling, and psychopaths. She's making an association per her profiling abilities that are only relevant to the reported cases she mentions coming across in the media. I don't doubt her expertise in profiling actual criminals, but her expertise does not provide evidence to generalize this for an entire demographic of individuals who kill a category of individuals; in this case the disabled. It would be no different if she suggested that individuals who kill the elderly are psychopaths.

There is an association of murder and psychopathy, but it is only one of many factors and associations of murder, not specific to psychopathy in the killing of the disabled, none of which she addresses as defining factors. She dismisses all other reported elements as non-factors, which might be true if the murderer was a diagnosed psychopath, but she has no evidence

She is suggesting that a mental disorder, psychopathy, that is studied as influenced as much as 60% by genetics, about the same studied influence in autism, somehow is related specific to the propensity of killing the disabled, many of whom also have mental disorders, potentially associated with genetics.

While the genetically influenced disorder of psychopathy is associated with the crime of murder, serial killing, and crimes in general, it does not provide a guarantee that a murder is in the future for a person that is born with the genetic traits associated with psychopathy. While there is a common stereotype that all serial killers are psychopaths, that does not reflect the data on those serial killers actually studied, some of which are diagnosed with schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

I'm surprised the author is promoting a stereotype of those that kill the disabled, that has not been evidenced anywhere else, per the mental disorder of psychopathy.

There is already a stereotype of psychopathy associated with autism. The next promotion or stereotype may be that individuals with Aspergers are more likely to be mass murderers; there is really nothing stopping an armchair expert in another area than Aspergers, from making this association, since Anders Breivik has recently been diagnosed with Aspergers.

The same author of the article on the disabled provides a critique of Anders Breivik, linked below, before his recent diagnosis of Aspergers, where she highlights his problems with repetitive behaviors. In the recent article associated with the Aspergers diagnosis, the common stereotype that Aspergers is associated with a lack of empathy continues on, as linked below and quoted.

http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-8884-expert-norway-killer-anders-behring-breivik-has-asperger-s-tourette-s.html



http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201108/the-ghosts-norway-how-the-victims-tell-us-about-murderer-anders-breivik

I have never argued a defense for the murder of any disabled individual, however just because there are individuals commenting on these articles on the internet discussing the issue of a disturbing killing, for those that try to come up with factors that led to the killing, offering empathy or sympathy for the circumstances associated with the general human condition, as it relates to the crime, does not necessarily mean that they are defending the crime or the murderer.

There is no evidence in the discussion on specific murders of disabled individuals, of anyone defending the actual murder of any disabled person, as a justified action on this site that I have seen. Yes, an expression of sympathy and empathy for the tragic circumstances of the incidences, and factors associated with the crime, but no, not a defense or an endorsement of the murderer or the crime. I challenge you to quote it, if it exists.

Who keeps calling people parasites? Who speaks of "lucky duckies" in the USA who don't pay federal income tax and thus have "no skin in the game" and thus should lose all rights. Who is demanding drug tests and all sorts of tight controls over the lower classes? The Right is. Who in Britain is leading a campaign of hatred against disabled people as "scroungers". The Right, the Right, always the Right! Today we have more wealth than ever in society but the Right is claiming that we have all sorts of non-existent scarcity so it's time to throw people onto the ice floes because we can't afford these "parasites". I saw one of those types at the protest and he described a woman as a "subhuman" and was the worst right wing scumbag... typical. The logic of these people is to eventually start exterminating people.

Just stop, xenon. No one cares for your preaching, especially when it isn't even related to the thread subject.

On this page, The Walrus' post: https://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3800818.html

He defends the killing of Tracy Latimer as a mercy killing. He retracted and apologized in the thread about the Autism speaks video, however, so I am not trying to accuse him, but to answer your challenge:



I don't believe you're endorsing the crimes, however. What your posts seem to me to do is focus on giving the murderers excuses such as mental illness, stress, and exhaustion, and advocating sympathy and compassion for them as if they too were victims. I don't think there's any value in such discussion. Every time the topic of parents murdering disabled children comes up, you minimize the crimes as rare or infrequent and participate in exactly the sort of culture that the author of the article linked in the OP criticizes. Which is why I knew you'd be in here to discredit her statements and suggested as much in my first post in this thread prior to your arrival (although I did not name any names). There is no shortage of people expressing sympathy and compassion for carers who murder disabled people, nor any shortage of people who assume that a disabled life is less valuable and thus the murder of a disabled person is not viewed as being as terrible (if terrible at all) as the murder of an abled person (other factors play a role as well - disability is not the only factor that devalues lives).

I found a sympathetic story about a PTSD Iraq vet who murdered his girlfriend: Actually, I find the way the story frames the murderer as a victim, and how much pain he's in for having killed a 19 year old woman rather reprehensible and indefensible.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-5 ... -to-blame/

You're right that the sympathy expressed toward veterans who murder is similar to the sympathy expressed toward parents who murder their disabled children. It creates a narrative in which PTSD causes a level of "acceptable" violence in which the murderer is the true victim, just as the murder of disabled children brings about the narrative of the parent who was depressed, and exhausted, and didn't have sufficient support even though often these are simply not true outside of the parent as victim narrative that is so popular.

Semi-related to the topic:

Whenever I see people say that being violent, nasty, and selfish is somehow default "human nature," I throw-up a little bit in my mouth.

The only reason people think it's "human nature" to be "selfish" is because Western science has tended to focus exclusively on violent, nasty behavior. We spend more time studying how we fight while devoting comparably little time to studying how we resolve conflicts. There's plenty of evidence for empathy, compassion, and "selfless behavior" in nature, but we consciously choose to ignore it, mostly, as far as I can guess, because anything suggesting that cooperation is an inherent part of "human nature" is automatically derided as "socialism."

It's uber-Capatalistic propaganda at it's finest. It has nothing to do with good science.

In reality, humans are classified as primates. As primates, we have the most complex social system in existence, and, as compared to other primates, we get along extremely well. Empathy and compassion have shaped our evolution every bit as violence and war.

It's part of our "nature" to help the sick and disabled. People who murder the "disabled" are walking perversions.

What makes it part of our nature to help the sick and disabled? Sick and disabled animals tend to die off and benefit the rest of the pack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer

The Walrus was arguing a point on Mercy Killing and unbearable pain, per the trial of Robert Latimer. In that thread you were suggesting that the killing of a disabled person brings a more lenient sentence than that of a non-disabled person. That trial wasn't an issue focused on disability, it was an issue focused on unbearable unrelenting pain and mercy killing as opposed to murder.

The court systems do not allow Mercy Killing. Dr Jack Kervorkian went to prison for this, and so did Robert Latimer. Humans will not allow animals to suffer unbearable pain, so they are euthanized, but it's the cultural norm to allow a human to suffer with unrelenting pain, because they are considered more valuable and important than animals.

At least proper access to health care can mitigate this circumstance for those that exist in unrelenting pain, but as stated earlier in the thread, there are some that do not concern themselves with the pain of others in society, beyond their internal groups of contact, at all, per the lack of concern for those in society that push to repeal healthcare coverage for those that rely on these accommodation to escape pain every minute of every day.

73% of the Canadian population not only sympathized with what many perceived as Robert Latimer's horrific tragic circumstances. They also sympathized with what they perceived as the pain and suffering of his daughter in what they perceived as a tragic human circumstance. Not surprising that the citizens of Canada have enough sympathy for all their fellow citizens to support Universal health care.

Your argument with the Walrus in that thread was whether or not there was disparity in the sentences of those individuals whom were disabled as compared to those that weren't. Per the issue specific to disability associated with Tracy Latimer, beyond the pain and suffering issue that was the focus of the trial, that example contradicts the point that you were making that killers of disabled children are more likely to receive lenient sentences than killers of children that aren't disabled, as he was convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Perhaps you don't feel there is any value in discussing the tragic circumstances of the human condition, associated with these tragic incidences, but much of humanity is evidenced as seeing value in it

Rarely are circumstances in life reliably understood or judged by anyone that does not walk in the shoes of another person. Most people do understand this, along with trying to make some kind of sense out of the world. It can result in empathy and sympathy for tragic circumstances in life. That's part of human nature, and it does bring value to the discussion to discuss the different viewpoints associated with tragic circumstances specific to the human condition.

No one expects you as an individual to feel any sympathy for these circumstances surrounding these tragic incidences or those that commit the crimes; I certainly don't.

However you have presented no evidence that I or anyone else defends the murder of the disabled or that I am providing any excuses, or attempting to minimize any of these crimes on a personal level. I am reporting the evidence as it exists.

Mercy killing, the topic specifically related to the Latimer case, is one of the most controversial issues there are in society, and there are definitely valid points of concern on both ends of that controversy.

Fortunately there are alternatives such as living wills that provide sentient human beings the ability to make those choices for themselves.

When it is an individual that does not have that ability to make that communication known, there is the potential for a living hell on earth. There aren't many good answers for that kind of situation, but there are certainly different points of view that have a solid basis per what is and what is not humane per the human condition.

I noted, the Walrus' statement in the Autism Speaks video thread, in his report that he did not have a full accounting of the facts associated with the Latimer case at the time of his discussion with you that influenced his point of view on whether or not it may have been associated with mercy killing over the unbearable pain of a human being. I saw no retraction or apology, just clarification of the specific issue per the Latimer case that he did not have access to all the facts, per the previous discussion.

They are listed in the link above, that indicate that a broader view of Tracy Latimer's life that was not one of unrelenting pain. Viewpoints can be determined by partial facts or all the facts. But, that is not evidence that the Walrus was defending the murder of an individual specific to the fact that the individual was disabled. There are some very caring, empathetic, sympathetic people in society have the viewpoint, that per the issue of mercy killing for those that truly are evidenced as suffering in unbearable pain, they deserve mercy as a humane action for a human being, not unlike a cat or a dog suffering the same in life, that cannot communicate their wishes. That is one of the most controversial issues in society, where debate continues. Religious ideology plays a part in the opinion of some. It is at times the selfish that insist on maintaining the life of another person or animal, regardless of the personal wishes, or the suffering of another being.

The Tracy Latimer case was an issue of Mercy killing vs Murder, based in part on whether or not there was unbearable unrelenting pain as far as what the sentence would be; while disability played a role in that circumstance, not all disabled individuals experience unbearable unrelenting pain.

The Walrus wasn't defending the murder of the disabled, he was defending what he considered a potential humane action, in the broader circumstances of the human condition, per assisted euthanasia, when an individual cannot adequately communicate their wishes.

That is probably the most horrifying potential of living, and there certainly are no black and white answers for what is morally right and wrong, although the legal system, does not allow people to draw the line on their own, without approval of the medical system.

I have no idea what Mr. Latimer's true intentions were, per whether or not they were completely based on love and compassion as he stated they were for his daughter's suffering from unrelenting pain, but neither does anyone else, other than Mr. Latimer, including the individual that authored the article that would suggest he is a psychopath, based on her general opinion in that article

The courts determined that the killing of his daughter was 2nd degree murder, so he suffers the consequences of his actions, per the laws of Canada.

73% of Canada did not agree with the sentencing, but the empathy and sympathy expressed is not one just for the tragic circumstances, it is also for the perceived pain and suffering, for those in the general population that do not believe that it should be a requirement that a human being live a life of unbearable unrelenting pain.

But, again from a reading from the full facts made available per Wiki, it does not appear that this was the full story of the young girls life. The court made a legal decision per the sentencing based on all the evidence they had access to.