Story Supplied by The Herald - 30 April 2002

DIANE Pretty lost her final appeal to the European Court of Human Rights yesterday to be allowed to die with dignity at a time of her choosing.

Her husband said later he would not break the law to help her commit suicide.

After the judges said that the law preventing assisted suicide was not a breach of Mrs Pretty's human rights, Brian Pretty said they were unlikely to pursue an appeal because his wife has "finally decided that this is enough".

Using an electronic voice synthesiser, Mrs Pretty, 43, who is dying of motor neurone disease and has just months to live according to doctors, made her feelings known after the judgment. "The law has taken all my rights away," she said.

But anti-euthanasia campaigners hailed it as a victory which would block the spread of laws allowing euthanasia in Europe, and possibly overturn existing legislation.

"It could even change the law in those countries like the Netherlands that now allow it," said Bruno Quintavalle, spokesman for the Pro-life Alliance.

Mrs Pretty had sought an assurance that the director of public prosecutions (DPP) would not take action against her husband because she is unable to kill herself unaided.

Although Mrs Pretty has now taken her case as far as she is prepared to go, she launched a website petition in her name yesterday in an effort to urge the government to change the law. She believes the petition may eventually help others.

Mr Pretty said: "I'm pleased in one respect because it means I will have my wife with me for a little bit longer. I am very saddened, because the one thing she wants to have is the chance to die at the time of her choosing.

"That has been denied to her and that is not right."

Mr Pretty said that the www.Justice4diane.org.uk website petition would put pressure on the government to ensure that an assisted suicide would eventually become law.

The ruling yesterday declared: "To seek to build into the law an exception for those judged to be incapable of committing suicide would seriously undermine the protection of life which the 1961 suicide act was intended to safeguard and greatly increase the risk of abuse."

George Levvy, the Motor Neurone Disease Association chief executive, said his members were split over the case.

A spokesman for Very Much Alive, a disability pressure group, welcomed the decision. "We hope this is the end of a sorry chapter in legal history but we will remain vigilant to ensure that euthanasia is never acceptable in a civilised society."

Deborah Annetts, director of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said the court had acknowledged a growing problem where advanced medical technology was creating long, lingering deaths.

The court made its judgment on the same day that the Department of Health revealed that Miss B, who was paralysed, died last week, just over a month after she won the legal right to have medical treatment withdrawn.

The cases have been linked by campaigners who believe the law is inconsistent.

Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow, said the two cases could not be compared because Miss B was under no obligation to accept treatment which artificially extended her life.

- April 30th

©2002 The Herald

Questions

1. Do we have a ‘right to die’? If so does this require a corresponding duty to kill?
2. Why are the disability pressure group Very Much Alive concerned with Mrs Pretty’s case and the issue of euthanasia?
3. Do advances in medical technology create ‘long lingering deaths’?
4. What does ‘dying with dignity’ mean to those in favour of euthanasia and to those against euthanasia?

Comments

• Advances in pain management and palliative care mean that the majority of terminally ill and disabled people can live out the rest of their lives comfortably and free from pain.

SPUC Scotland Paper 6
The Case Against Euthanasia
June 2002

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. All Rights Reserved. Tel: 0141 221 2094. E-mail: Web Design & Development by CSS Web Design