CASE 5 Bioethics - Diane Pretty (euthanasia) PDF

Preview

Summary

CASE 5 Bioethics - Diane Pretty (euthanasia), we discuss the topic and explain our point of view of the case....

Description

Nerea Muñoz Morgado (100453575) Lucía Vázquez Larrubia (100453655) CASE 5 BIOETHICS. DIANE Diane Pretty is described by her supporters as "a tough lady" - but it remains to be seen how many further legal challenges she can endure. Even in the months she has been in the public eye, her motor neurone disease has noticeably progressed. The disease robs the patient of the ability to move muscles including, eventually, those controlling speech and breathing. Mrs Pretty already has an advanced illness, and at times, she found it difficult to even stay in the High Court to hear her future being debated there. The 42-year-old wants to end her life - but because of the immobilising nature of motor neurone, despite the clarity of her thoughts, she lacks the capacity to perform the act. This is what brings her into conflict with the law. Her husband, Brian, wants to help her die, but faces possible prosecution should he do so - with a maximum potential jail term of 14 years. He told the BBC: "This is against the law at the moment and there is no way we are going to go against the law. So we will go to court. We shall fight in court and we will appeal if we lose because I want her to have her final wish." Pretty took her case to court using the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions should make a commitment not to prosecute anybody involved in helping her to die. British courts did not accept Pretty's arguments, with the House of Lords, Britain's highest court at the time, eventually turning her case down. The European Court of Human Rights refused to acknowledge that the European Convention on Human Rights provided a right to die, and her appeal to that court also failed. Diane Pretty died aged 43 on 11 May 2002, as her health had deteriorated over the last several months due to a series of lung and chest problems. - Discuss this case from a bioethical perspective. Are the traditional principles of bioethics relevant for this case? Could this case be addressed using a non-principlist approach? - Despite of the European Court sentence, has she a right to die? - If someone illegally helped her to die, could it be justified from a legal perspective?

The case of Diane Pretty reminds us of a very familiar case that happened in Spain in 2018. María José Carrasco had been suffering for 40 years from multiple sclerosis, a neurodegenerative disease. After all this time, the disease worsened over the last 10 years and she lost practically all her mobility. Her husband had to help her to carry out any vital task, such as going to the toilet, eating, etc. Like Diane, the consequences of the disease caused her

Nerea Muñoz Morgado (100453575) Lucía Vázquez Larrubia (100453655) great damage and devastation that prevented her from leading a normal life. She wanted to end her life to put an end to so much prolonged pain. The couple tried many initiatives to get a law in favour of euthanasia passed, but it was not enough. Time went by, and the pain that María José was suffering continued to increase. After numerous requests from María José to end her life, her husband helped her to die by giving her a kind of medicine. Her husband Ángel was accused of murder and after a long judicial process, he was declared innocent of the charges after the euthanasia law came into force at that time. They are not completely identical cases, but they do help us to understand the issue of euthanasia or the right to a dignified death. First of all, in order to lay the groundwork for the debate in this case, we have to take into account basic bioethical principles. Respect for persons is one of the principles involved in this case, and consists of the requirement to recognise autonomy and the requirement to protect persons with diminished autonomy. Given that Diane has diminished autonomy due to her illness, protecting her would mean taking into account her capacity for self-determination. Despite her diminished autonomy, this has not affected her reasoning and her mental health was perfectly preserved like that of any normal person. In addition, another principle to be taken into account is that of beneficence. This principle consists of respecting in an ethical manner, respecting their decisions, protecting them from possible harm and their well-being. Therefore, taking into account the former principle and the latter, and exercising judgement to the best of our abilities, her request should have been respected because of her good mental health and that in her judgement continuing her life would be much more harmful than ending her life. Looking at the case from a legal point of view, we are dealing with a state governed by the rule of law. A state under the rule of law is based primarily on liberal principles, the freedom of its citizens and with the maximum right to property. Therefore, it is either directly or indirectly related to the defence of individual liberty or the right to ownership of "one's own life". The passing of a law in favour of euthanasia is positive both for those in favour of such a law and for those who would position themselves against it. No one loses in this case, even those who vote against it will come out of the vote with the same rights they had before the vote. In other words, it would be a universal extension of rights that would be used for those who need it most. In conclusion, the positive thing about the extension of such rights is that they are universal. This implies that any person is legitimately free to decide whether or not to do so, without affecting a person who may need it in any case, because that is what the right is all about. To take it back to our own territory, the extension of this type of rights has already left us with some examples in Spain. When homosexual marriage was approved by Zapatero's government, the PP deputies voted against it. However, we later saw some of the same people who voted against it use that right to their advantage. In short, the expansion of fundamental rights should never be a debate....