Pretty v. United Kingdom

Diane Pretty (plaintiff) suffered from a degenerative illness. The disease advanced to the point of paralysis from the neck down and required feeding through a tube. Pretty had been given at most months to live, and the disease would only worsen. Pretty’s cognition, however, was unaffected. Given the circumstances, Pretty wanted to have the ability to control her death with the assistance of her husband. Although the law of the United Kingdom (defendant) did not prohibit suicide, it did prohibit assisting another in suicide. The couple wrote to the director of public prosecutors, requesting that the husband not be prosecuted if he assisted Pretty with suicide. The director declined, and this decision was upheld by domestic courts in judicial review. Pretty claimed that these decisions violated the European Convention on Human Rights. First, Pretty argued that the decisions violated Article 2, which protected everyone’s right to life. Because Article 2 guaranteed a right to life, Pretty argued, it also protected a right to end life. Second, Pretty argued that the denial violated Article 8, which protected a right to respect for one’s private life unless governmental-action interference with that right was in accordance with law and necessary in a democratic society for (among other things) the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. According to Pretty, Article 8 guaranteed a right of self-determination.