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; The case was heared by The Europien Court of Human Rights; Chamber was composed of 8 persons (the president Mr. M. Pellonpaa); Chamber was composed of 8 persons (the president Mr. M. Pellonpaa); Applicant – Mrs. Dianne Pretty against the United Kingdom Applicant – Mrs. Dianne Pretty against the United Kingdom

3. DIANNE PRETTY & FACTS OF THE CASE 43 years-old women borned in 1958; 43 years-old women borned in 1958; A United Kingdom national living in Luton; A United Kingdom national living in Luton; Motor neurone disease, a degenerative disease affecting the muscles; Motor neurone disease, a degenerative disease affecting the muscles; All body paralyzed, but intellect – unimpaired; 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 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;

4. She wished to be assisted by her husband, but her request was refused by Director of Public Prosecutions; 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; 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 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 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 8: complaining that England government violates her right to self- determination;

6. Article 9: complaining that her right of beliefs was violated; 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; Article 14: complaining that it’s not equal that able-bodied persons can do suicide without anybody assistance and disable-bodied persons can’t;

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 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 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;

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 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 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;

9. 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; 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;

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 !