Discuss the Diane Pretty case with reference to the issue of assisted suicide
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
R (on behalf of Diane Pretty v Director of Public Prosecutions) House of Lords Decision.
The above case was concerned with the politically contentious issue of assisted suicide, which also has particular relevance to the scope and ambit of the application of 'human rights' within the English Legal system.
Intrinsic to the decisionmaking processes involved during the case was the court's exploration of the assertion that to maintain Mrs Pretty's life (by preventing assisted suicide) was to infringe upon several of the key articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Within the context of the English law, she aimed to establish that at least that part of section 2(1) of the 1961 Act which makes aiding or abetting suicide a crime was in conflict with her Convention rights. Despite acknowledging in August 2001 that Mrs Pretty was enduring 'terrible suffering' as a consequence of her condition of advanced Motor Neurone Disease (MND) , the DPP could not offer her husband Brian Pretty freedom from prosecution under the Suicide Act.. Counsel for Mrs Pretty then appealed to the High Court on the findings of a judicial review, a process which (upon rejection by the Court) moved to the House of Lords.
In summary, it was accepted that Mrs Pretty's arguments centred purely upon the European Convention, and that the position that existed under English Law could not be decisive. Nonetheless, in passing judgement the House of Lords highlighted what was perhaps the prevalent socio - legal attitude towards the issue of assisted death by referring to the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789, 867D, per Lord Goff of Chieveley.
"Under the double effect principle medical treatment may be administered to a terminally ill person to alleviate pain although it may hasten death: This principle entails a distinction between foreseeing an outcome and intending it: see also Anthony Arlidge, The trial of Dr David Moor, [2000] Crim LR 31"
Additionally, the specific articles of the ECHR allegedly infringed in this instance were Art.2, 3, 8, 9 and 14, with perhaps particular attention given to 3, 8 and 14..