1

• The right to life and its unique aspects
  (Euthanasia)
• CASE OF DIANNE PRETTY VS. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• Made by Vytaute Bardauskaite

2

• 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

3
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 doesnt matter that SUICIDE IS NOT A CRIME IN
  UK she was not able to take such step without
  assistance

4

• 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

5
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

6

• Article 9 complaining that her right of beliefs
  was violated
• Article 14 complaining that its not equal that
  able-bodied persons can do suicide without
  anybody assistance and disable-bodied persons
  cant

7
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
  didnt give a permission to applicants husband to
  commit a suicide it doesnt mean that applicant
  was subjected to torture or to inhuman or
  degrading treatment

8

• 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
  applicants views reflected her commitment to the
  principle of personal autonomy, her claim was a
  restatement of the complaint raised under Article
  8

9

• There was no violation of article 14 The court
  thought that its not a discrimination not to let
  third person to assist other person to do suicide

10
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 .

11

• THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND KIND ATTENTION?!