Case of Diane Pretty before European Court of Human Rights - 1650 Words

The Case of Diane Pretty before the European Court of Human Rights (Essay Sample) Content: My opinion of the caseNameInstitutional AffiliationMY OPINION OF THE CASEThe Case of Diane Pretty before the European Court of Human RightsOn 29th November 2001, the House of Lords gathered together to consider the case of Diane Pretty. Considering the issue had been presented in the high court about a month prior specifically on 18th October 2001, this was fast without a doubt. The explanation or justification certainly was that Mrs. Pretty suffered from motor neurone disease. According to Cour Europenne Des Droits DE LHomme European Court of Human Rights (2002) and Lord Bingham of Cornhill, this was a gradual irreversible deterioration, and loss of function in the organs or tissues disease from which (Mrs. Pretty) had no expectation of healing. With only a short duration to live, Mrs. Pretty faced the possibility or likelihood of a shameful and upsetting death. Mrs. Pretty was psychologically conscious and wanted the chance to be allowed to decide how her death woul d come about and at a point and time of her choice. It is worth noting that not only was the director of public prosecution (DPP) privy to the details of the case, but also the home secretary as well as the court also obtained printed submissions from a Roman Catholic Archbishop including the medical ethics association, the society for the safety of unborn children and alert.Whats more, Mrs. Pretty wanted her partner to assist her in her death if her wish was granted. It is important to note that her husband wanted to help out, however, only if he was certain that he was not going to be put on trial in accordance with subsection 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 for helping and supporting his wifes suicide. Mrs. Pretty wanted the Director of Public Prosecutions to agree to her request that he would not take legal action against Mr. Pretty if he assisted her to take her own life; however, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) declined to grant a go-ahead for such an activity. Mrs. Pre tty went ahead to apply for a judicial evaluation of that denial, and the Queens Bench Divisional Court supported the Director of Public Prosecutions judgment. According to Costa (2003), Diane Pretty maintained she had a moral authority to her spouses help in carrying out suicide which means that if subsection 2 of the 1961 Act, forbids his assistance and does not stop the chief in charge to take legal action then it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR].My opinionArticle 3 preserves that one of the primary values of self-governing societies as well as its ban on the excluded treatment is unconditional. Therefore, it can be argued or concluded that it is independent to Article 2. This is because Article 2 necessitates that states should value and defend the lives of everybody, therefore Article 3 obligates the state to value both physical and individual honesty of such persons. Therefore, my view here is that Article 3 does not bear on peoples authority to be alive or to come to a decision not to be alive. As a result, it cannot be in my view to reasonably suggest that the director of public prosecutions or any representatives of the United Kingdom inflicted the forbidden treatment on Diane, whose pain was due to her brutal illness.During the hearing of the case, it was also debated or suggested that Article 8 (that discusses the right to respect for family and personal life) gave Mrs. Pretty the authority to independence, assuming the authority to decide how and at what time to depart this life. However, in my view, Mrs. Prettys rights were not betrothed for the reason that Article 8 has to do with the approach in which an individual conducts his or her life as well as their physical, ethical and mental honesty. It is important to note that the home secretarys barrister also supported this view. Therefore, the hit on Article 8 ought to not make the grade on grounds that the assurance under Article 8 forbids interfering with the approac h wherein a person directs his life and it does not concern the approach wherein he or she desires to depart this life.In the case, their Lordships touched in brief on Article 9 o...