page 2 of Diane Pretty - her right to choose

But as with the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, this is a fig-leaf of convenience. In the Netherlands a thoughtful and careful law now exists to permit active euthanasia and assisted suicide, and in the American state of Oregon an equally careful law permits physician-assisted suicide. Every year in Oregon a report is issued describing the numbers and circumstances of those who have availed themselves of the law, and it makes touching reading – not least because in the majority of cases it meant that sufferers were able to die at home, with their families and friends around them, in relative peace.

This is what Mrs Pretty wants. Some of those who came forward as 'interveners' in the case – religious organisations, mainly – pointed out that there is excellent hospice care for people with terminal illnesses, where she will be looked after in ways that palliate her suffering and allow her to die with dignity. It is certainly true that the hospice movement offers outstandingly good terminal care, and that modern medicines greatly enhance their ability to provide it. But the existence of palliative care is not to the point for Mrs Pretty. She wishes to die when she is still alert, and able to say goodbye to her family. She does not want to endure the utter helplessness and distress of the last stages of her illnesses, whatever is available in the way of tranquillisers and reassurance. She might be paralysed and wheelchair-bound, but she is still a person with a mind of her own; and she wishes to make choices about her own affairs, above all to say when, where and how she will leave the life which, for all the happiness it has brought in personal terms, is drawing to an end so cruelly. Natural justice says that this is her right; and so does the Convention on Human Rights. All she asks is that her rights be respected.

---------------------------------------------