case of dianne pretty

Document Sample
case of dianne pretty Powered By Docstoc
					“The right to life and its unique
      aspects” (Euthanasia)

CASE OF DIANNE PRETTY VS.
  THE UNITED KINGDOM
          Made by Vytaute Bardauskaite
 The case was heared by The Europien Court of
 Human Rights;

 Chamber was composed of 8 persons (the
 president Mr. M. Pellonpaa);

 Applicant – Mrs. Dianne Pretty against the
 United Kingdom
DIANNE PRETTY & FACTS OF THE CASE
 43 years-old women borned in 1958;
 A United Kingdom national living in Luton;
 Motor neurone disease, a degenerative disease
  affecting the muscles;
 All body paralyzed, but intellect – unimpaired;
 She wanted to control how and when she will die
  and doesn’t matter that SUICIDE IS NOT A CRIME
  IN UK she was not able to take such step without
  assistance;
 She wished to be assisted by her husband, but her
  request was refused by Director of Public
  Prosecutions;
 Then her application was lodged with the
  Europien Court of Human Rights which
  unanimously found the application admissible
  and held that there had been no violation of the
  European Convention on Human Rights Article 2,
  3, 8, 9, 14;
          THE APPLICATION
 Article 2: complaining that if there is right to
  live it has to be right to die;
 Article 3: complaining that England
  government has to take positive steps to
  protect persons within its jurisdiction from
  being subjected to inhuman and degrading
  treatment;
 Article 8: complaining that England
 government violates her right to self-
 determination;
 Article 9: complaining that her right of beliefs was
 violated;

 Article 14: complaining that it’s not equal that
 able-bodied persons can do suicide without
 anybody assistance and disable-bodied persons
 can’t;
              COURT DESICION
 There was no violation of article 2: court explained that
  without distortion of language, be interpreted as
  conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right
  to die; nor could it create a right to self-determination in
  the sense of conferring on an individual the entitlement to
  choose death rather than life;
 There was no violation of article 3: court explained that
  article 3 is very connected with article 2. Article 2 was first
  and foremost a prohibition on the use of lethal force or
  other conduct that might lead to the death of a human
  being and did not confer any claim on an individual to
  require a State to permit or facilitate his or her death; So if
  the court didn’t give a permission to applicants husband to
  commit a suicide it doesn’t mean that applicant was
  subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment;
 There was no violation of article 8: The Court
  concluded that the interference to private or family
  life could be justified as “necessary in a democratic
  society” for the protection of the rights of others;
 There was no violation of article 9: The Court
  explained that not all beliefs and opinions are
  protected by article 9. To the extent that the
  applicant’s views reflected her commitment to the
  principle of personal autonomy, her claim was a
  restatement of the complaint raised under Article 8;
 There was no violation of article 14: The court
 thought that it’s not a discrimination not to let
 third person to assist other person to do suicide;
   INFLUENCE OF THE CASE
Influence of this case was to show community
that euthanasia is not a legal act and that this act
can violate article 2 of “The European Convention
on Human Rights” .
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
  AND KIND ATTENTION!

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:6/13/2012
language:English
pages:11