The right to die: Should euthanasia be made legal?

Terminally ill Diane Pretty has lost her appeal for the right to commit suicide with the help of her husband.

The House of Lords gave its decision after the High Court ruled in October that a family member could not help a loved one die.

The mother of two, who suffers from motor neurone disease, is paralysed from the neck down and has to be fed with a tube.

Mrs Pretty, 43, said: "If I am allowed to decide when and how I die, I will feel that I have wrested some autonomy back and kept hold of my dignity."

Prime Minister Tony Blair told MPs in the Commons: "It is really a matter of conscience for people on both sides of the House, but I'm afraid I'm not in favour of amending that Act."

What are your views on euthanasia? Do you agree with the ruling?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

No one can really understand the quality of life Diane and her family have, unless one has been there. Not giving her the right to end her life when she wants is inhuman.
Alexis Morphis, Cyprus

In a world where individuals like Dr Shipman exist, I would rather not have a euthhanasia law thank you.
Dr B Green, UK

Euthanasia opens the flood gates to abuse

Dave, France

Good pain relief, even if it may shorten life a little, good symptom control and death counselling must be fully available to everyone. But euthanasia opens the flood gates to abuse, and there is no second chance. We should have a right to life ... not death.
Dave, France

Providing that it is the choice of the individual, it is no one else's business. We all love people who die, but none of us, family, friends, state, has a right to control the lives of others. If they are terminally ill, and/or in pain, an adult's life is theirs and theirs alone. Human lives are the possession of no one. Let the individual, if lucid, make their own mind up.
Susan, Canada

She can't be forced to die, so why should she be forced to live?
Alex Banks, UK, living in Ireland

A very tricky subject that needs to be clearly defined for everyone before it is even considered

Chris, UK

My first reaction is to say that you should live your life until it ends naturally. However, my opinion may change if I was in the same position. If the ruling had gone in favour of Diane Pretty it would be open to abuse by certain unscrupulous people. A very tricky subject that needs to be clearly defined for everyone before it is even considered.
Chris, UK

This is a desperately sad case. I have a close relative who is terminally ill, so I can sympathise with some of the sentiments expressed in favour of assisted suicide. My big problem is how the distinction between "assisting to a dignified death" and "bumping off so we can get our hands on the insurance money/estate" can be drawn. Reluctantly, I conclude that if Mrs Pretty were to win her case, then the lives of many elderly, sick and otherwise vulnerable people would be put in jeopardy at the hands of unscrupulous relatives and potential beneficiaries.
Rodger Edwards, UK

Of course euthanasia should be legalised, but 'eligibility' should be judged case-by-case with a second opinion as in the Netherlands. If I lose all ability to live my life according to my wishes, why shouldn't I have a clear right to death as well as the right to life?
Rach, Wales, UK

I can sympathise with the Pretty case and there are valid points in favour of euthanasia. However if it were to be made legal I believe it would set a dangerous legal precedent that could not be truly regulated.
Ray Millard, UK

To the "problem" of preventing next of kin deciding on the fate of their loved one, the solution is simple. You make the legislation such that no individual other than the person involved can make the decision. What's so difficult about that? As for the idea that euthanasia is "unnatural" (!?), let's see how important you think that is when it is you in perpetual agony, suffering a drawn-out undignified death.
Rob Harris, UK

There has to be a better way to preserve the human dignity of the dying

Mac, Scotland

I saw my brother die very slowly and very painfully from pancreatic cancer. The way he died was appalling, undignified and inhumane. If this was god's way, then this supernatural entity is a monster. There has to be a better way to preserve the human dignity of the dying.
Mac, Scotland

The US is in the middle of a similar debate, with Attorney General Ashcroft trying to overturn the state of Oregon's law allowing physician assisted suicide. I will admit that the issue is so intellectually complicated and emotionally charged that I have not been able to take a confident position on either side. However, in my personal role as a hospice nurse, I feel that if our governments and medical establishments really gave hospice care the backing that it requires, we would be able to eliminate most persons' desire for euthanasia. In cases where death is inevitable, hospice and palliative care experts must be allowed to truly manage symptoms and promote the highest quality of life possible until the end.
Timothy, USA

We all like to think that we can choose how we live. Diane has no choice. She can't do anything for herself. She's imprisoned in her own body. If there is a God he would have given her the key long ago. How can mere humans stand in the way. Keeping Diane alive is just plain cruel. Let humanity live.
Iain Knight, England

Life is a precious commodity. Only a person who has made the painful & difficult decision to give it up is likely to have any idea of how precious it really is. How can we claim to be civilised when we cling to emotional prejudices and blind ourselves to the true suffering of individuals forced into making such a choice. This request was not made lightly and the world should have the strength to assist those in need. Diane has suffered enough. It is those who respect life least that keep her suffering. Shame on you.
Greg Espey, South Africa

While I support Diane's right to end her life, the House of Lords was correct in their ruling. People forget that the Justice system has to operate within the laws EXISTING, they cannot make them up or ignore them. What a Lord or Judge believes is fair is not always the same as what he rules on with regard to the law. The law would have to be changed by the normal process for Diane to have the right to end her life.
Michael, Dublin, Ireland

Yet again us Brits prove ourselves to be old fashioned and out of touch. The right to live, to die, to love etc etc is the right of the individual..not some bunch of old fuddy duddy's stuck in the House of Lords. It's time we caught up with our more enlightened European neighbours. Best wishes to Diane and our sympathies.
Peter Theakston, Netherlands (but British!)

Euthanasia is an essential human right

Brenda de Jager, The Netherlands

Euthanasia is an essential human right. I am flabbergasted by the outcome of the appeal. Euthanasia has been legal in The Netherlands for a long time and it is something to be proud of. Wishing Diane, and all the other people in similar situations, lots of strength.
Brenda de Jager, The Netherlands

This debate should not be about sanctity of life, but quality of life. I am anti-abortion and pro-euthanasia. I believe that we need to improve the level of support given to those mothers who don't want their child and persuade them to give their child up for adoption rather than have an abortion. And we should provide all the necessary help that will benefit those who are terminally ill and in severe pain or disabled. We need to start letting these people, unborn or dying, have some dignity and we must show them our respect.
Matthew Jones, Wales

There is clearly no rule in English law that allows the life of one individual to be taken by another

Andrew Jones, UK

All the people who complain that today's ruling is wrong do not seem to understand the role of the Law Lords. Their responsibility is to interpret the facts of the case presented to them in relation to laws already passed by Parliament. Their judgements are based solely on the interpretation of the law, and not their own opinions as to whether the law is just or not. There is clearly no rule in English law that allows the life of one individual to be taken by another, and the ruling would seem to be consistent with that. If the population in general feel that this is wrong, then Parliament must change the law accordingly.
Andrew Jones, UK

I find it interesting that so many people have said in respect of this unfortunate lady that it is her life and she has the right to decide when to end it. I take it that the same people are against abortion where life is terminated without any consideration whatsoever for the rights of the unborn child.
RS, England

How can one human being possibly rule that another does not have the right to die?
RL, UK

We have no control over our own lives or death, yet we still want to play God

Bhaven, London, UK

In my opinion the right decision was reached. Although I understand the misery she may be going through death is not the answer. People experience emotional as well as physical pains - will they also be allowed to end their lives because they cannot cope? We have to get a grip - we have no control over our own lives or death, yet we still want to play God.
Bhaven, London, UK

Freedom to live, freedom to love, and freedom to die. I consider these to be my choices, protected by the courts and not dictated by them. However I see this right to die issue as a non-issue, in that any physician worth his salt will do the right thing when the time comes. Giving the truism of this statement, why the fuss?
Jim Tolbert, USA

Yes euthanasia should be legalised, providing there are strict safeguards. Whose life is it anyway?
Paul, UK

The state should enshrine an individual's right to die and thus bring into the open a practice which at present takes place in an intolerably unsupported way when, in fact, the institutions of the state should be offering support and counselling to all those individuals affected at such a stressful and difficult time.
Andy Parnham, England

People forget that the justice system has to operate within the laws existing, they cannot make them up or ignore them

Michael, Dublin, Ireland

While I support Diane's right to end her life, the House of Lords was correct in their ruling. People forget that the justice system has to operate within the laws EXISTING, they cannot make them up or ignore them. What a Lord or judge believes is fair is not always the same as what he rules on with regard to the law. The law would have to be changed by the normal process for Diane to have the right to end her life.
Michael, Dublin, Ireland

No one has the right to inflict their religious opinions on other people. If Diane doesn't believe in God then any so-called moral religious argument does not apply. She should be allowed the choice.
Steve, UK

The ruling is not about the right to die; it's about the right to kill

Julian Hayward, UK

The ruling is not about the right to die; it's about the right to kill. The judges have to balance the rights of those who want to die but cannot do it themselves, against the rights of those who do not want to die but would be at risk of being killed if the law were relaxed. They have quite correctly ruled that the right to live is more important than the right to die, and because there is no foolproof way to prevent abuse the law must stand. That may seem hard, but Mrs Pretty will certainly not be remembered with dignity if she opens loopholes for legalised murder.
Julian Hayward, UK

The law and medical establishment turn a blind eye to euthanasia all the time

Keith, Canada

Happens all the time. When my father was dying he had a morphine pump. When asked about maximum dosage, the doctor told mum not to worry, she could just keep giving it to him, with a very clear inference that she could end his life at any time. So far as I know she didn't; the last few days dad seemed to be separated from pain enough to just slip away. I'm sure there are situations like this literally every day. The law is not applied consistently - the law and medical establishment turn a blind eye to euthanasia all the time so long as it isn't too blatant. Care providers practice euthanasia every day. There's someone being helped to die right now as you read this and we'll never hear about it.
Keith, Canada

Can any of these Lords look Diane in the eye?

Ralph Lewis, UK

Is this what hundreds of years of enlightenment, democracy and humanism have given us - that a terminally ill, tortured woman can't be allowed out of her misery despite her pleadings? Is this the famed civilisation in whose name we are bombing the Taleban? Can any of these Lords look Diane in the eye and say "Tough"? Sadly, I think they can.
Ralph Lewis, UK

The ruling couldn't go any other way. If this was acceptable by law, where would it stop? There are salesmen going to pensioners' houses getting them to sign away their savings already - how would the law deal with someone who had unwittingly signed away their own life? This individual case is tragic, but the consequences of allowing this react far beyond this single case. Where would the line be drawn? Emotional distress? Loss of a limb? A loved one? If this case had not been as public, would the law have stepped in if he had actually helped her die? Unfortunately, with all the publicity this has received, he would certainly be arrested if they now go ahead with it.
Stephen Small, UK

It is those who respect life least that keep her suffering

Greg Espey,
South Africa

Life is a precious commodity. Only a person who has made the painful and difficult decision to give it up is likely to have any idea of how precious it really is. How can we claim to be civilised when we cling to emotional prejudices and blind ourselves to the true suffering of individuals forced into making such a choice? This request was not made lightly and the world should have the strength to assist those in need. Diane has suffered enough. It is those who respect life least that keep her suffering. Shame on you.
Greg Espey, South Africa

Sometimes there is no judgement of Solomon to be had

Anthony, England

Laws are never black and white. It is extremely difficult to balance and sometimes by altering one law you end up creating more anomalies and unfairness than the problem you addressed in the first place. I am afraid Diane Pretty falls into this situation. Parliament could open the way for more unscrupulous people to dispose of relatives who had become ill and unable to look after themselves by trying to legislate for people in her situation. Sometimes there is no judgement of Solomon to be had.
Anthony, England

She only has a right to live with dignity and no one has a right to end life

Arif Sayed, Dubai, UAE

While I do sympathise with Diane, allowing her request would have opened a Pandora's Box. She only has a right to live with dignity and no one has a right to end life no matter what the circumstances.
Arif Sayed, Dubai, UAE

The Lords have made the right decision. The pro-euthanasia lobby seek to represent their opponents as sort of leftover medieval Bible-bashers but I really do feel that if the law, which is a very basic law and protection against killing, was simply waved aside like this, then there would be many cases of people getting away with murder. Mrs Pretty in this case would not be around to have those deaths on her conscience. Let Mr Pretty help his wife to die in the way that she wants and then, stand up in court and explain why. Surely a life is worth that? No judge in the land would send him to prison. I am worried that it is a short step from saying "The sick have a right to die" to saying "The sick have less of a right to live."
Vicki, England

By refusing a swift end to a horrible suffering these Lords have become tormenters rather than upholders of legality

Arthur Saldore, UK

Those who have made this decision should be legally forced to witness the indignity Diane Pretty will suffer until she finally dies a 'natural' death. By refusing a swift end to a horrible suffering, these 'Lords' (a term that used to connote nobility) have become tormenters rather than upholders of legality. I wish they could be prosecuted for this, but they can't.
Arthur Saldore, UK

We must think carefully about the long-term implications of changing the law. If we legislate for mercy killing on a compassionate basis - where will it lead us in 30 years time if we change the legal and thus moral and cultural landscape in which we live? Possibly creating the right to put down the elderly for all kinds of reasons. And before anyone says that is absurd, don't forget the right to abortion created in the1960s was also a response to the plight of many women suffering from back street abortions. And 30 years on we have a large number of abortions medically sanctioned because having a baby is simply inconvenient...something the 1968 law never intended.
Kevin Thompson, UK

As a healthy person, if Mrs Pretty was able to and wanted to jump in front of a fast-moving lorry to be killed - that is her right, suicide is legal. Unfortunately she is not capable of doing that and her case involves more than suicide, as someone else has to help her. An exception should then be granted on her behalf so that her husband can do as she asks to end her life in the way she wants. It is still suicide as she would die as she wanted to while the accomplice was a tool to that end, just like the lorry.
VLL, UK

I just wonder if Diane's husband did assist her, what jury would convict him of murder?
Janet, UK

If a person requests that they be helped to die, then how is that construed as murder?

Susan, USA/UK

If a person requests that they be helped to die, then how is that construed as murder? I agree with Diane Pretty that under our current laws she now has no rights with regard to her wishes. This must be a significant warning to anyone diagnosed with a similarly progressively debilitating illness. If you abhor the idea of being forced to continue your life, when all quality is gone, and you have no independence at all, you must choose to end your life while you are still capable of administering drugs to yourself. The law is proving itself an ass, and the administrators of that law are showing themselves to be autocratic and totally out of touch with the real world.
Susan, USA/UK

The right to live or die should be the personal choice of each and every individual. I find it sickening and immensely patronising that Diane Pretty's case has been dismissed.
Dave, UK

To kill yourself is not natural

Dave, Dublin, Ireland

A fundamental human characteristic is the will to survive. To kill yourself is not natural. It's a disease. This disease may come in the form of depression but the important thing to do is to treat this disease and not let it take over. The government should create rules and laws that benefit the community it governs- this could involve counselling and psychiatric treatment for those who wish to kill themselves. The argument of "I'm going to die anyway" is not much of an argument. We all have to die sometime. People should look at the heart of the issue and shouldn't be influenced by the emotions that ignorant journalists try to stir up.
Dave, Dublin, Ireland

This ruling is wrong. I have a friend who, like Diane, is suffering from Motor Neurone Disease. It has been heartbreaking to watch her rapidly deteriorate from a happy, energetic, fun-loving lady to being stuck inside a body that doesn't work. If she ever expresses a wish to end her life, I will be behind her 100%.
JG, UK

I wish you strength, Diane and Brian, after the disappointing ruling made today. Can there be anyone who still does not understand why euthanasia should be made legal? My heart goes out to you.
Yvonne, Netherlands

The decision to legalise euthanasia must be a democratic one, by our elected representatives in Parliament, not by judges construing a meaning from the Human Rights Act that it was never intended to have

Robert Kaye, UK

While I have every sympathy for Diane Pretty, there are two compelling reasons why the House of Lords was right in its decision. First, the decision to legalise euthanasia must be a democratic one, by our elected representatives in Parliament, not by judges construing a meaning from the Human Rights Act that it was never intended to have. Secondly, whatever justification there might be for allowing euthanasia in a particular case - perhaps medically assisted - it would be wholly improper for the Director of Public Prosecutions to give a carte blanche assurance to a husband that he would not bring a charge if that man killed his wife, since he could not possibly foresee the circumstances in which this would take place.
Robert Kaye, UK

Euthanasia has been legalized in the Netherlands for a long time now. It is applied in a case-by-case fashion with a mandatory second-opinion. If it has been proven beyond a doubt that a person is suffering unbearable pain each day he or she has left, who are we to stop them from a dignified and painless death?
Kay, The Netherlands

It just goes to prove how remote both parliamentary houses are from the wishes of the people.
Peter, UK

If I am in a coma, I don't want to die because someone has decided I have no quality of life

P Gillard, UK

It's a tricky one; I am against legalised euthanasia for purely selfish reasons. If I am in a coma, I don't want to die because someone has decided I have no quality of life. This is because people have come back, and there is still hope. But in the case of Mrs Pretty it's different because death is certain, she has made her choice and made it clear. The problem is how do you legislate for one without allowing the other?
P Gillard, UK

Yes it should be legal but with strict guidelines. The decision must be made whilst the patient is still lucid and in control of their mental faculties. It must be presided over by a qualified and respected doctor and not be the decision of a family member, and legal documentation must be created so that a person can make this wish, perhaps a living will, whilst still capable of doing so. If the doctors agree that the patient's quality of life of will never improve and that the disease is terminal then it is only right that we, as human beings, have the right to end our misery. If we can put dogs to sleep because it is the humane thing to do we must be able to end the suffering of humans as well.
CK, UK

If they want to end their suffering, who are we, as healthy people, to criticise or condemn this?

Christine, UK

My gut reaction would be to say euthanasia should not be allowed. But then I see Mrs Pretty and I try to put myself in her situation. What if I wanted to end my life while I still had some dignity, but needed someone to help me? How would I feel then if people who were totally unconnected with me told me that I couldn't do it, or that they would prosecute whoever helped me? I think I'd be fighting for a change in the law.

It must be terribly frustrating for Mr and Mrs Pretty to listen to all these people telling them that they can't do what they think is best for them. Modern medicine is great in that it's given us a chance to live long and happy lives but in cases where medicine is just prolonging the suffering of very ill people I think it's time for a review of the law. We can't just blindly insist on treating people and forcing them to hang on to lives when they feel they've lost their dignity. If they want to end their suffering, who are we, as healthy people, to criticise or condemn this?
Christine, UK

Your life belongs to you, not to the state

Geoff, UK

Of course euthanasia should be a right. Your life belongs to you, not to the state or some mystical 'god'. If you want to end your life then it's yours to end, and nobody else should be allowed to prevent you.
Geoff, UK

Once again the law fails the very people it is supposed to protect. Diane, I am sorry.
Mark, UK

God decides whether we should come into this world, we should put our trust in him to let us leave when he sees fit. We should not mess with nature nor go against the Lord's wishes.
Will Faulkner, Hale, Cheshire

Will Faulkner mentions going against the Lord's wishes. Would this be a reference to the wishes of the House of Lords or to a singular and even more ethereal deity? The question is whether euthanasia should be allowed in these tragic instances - not Mr. Faulkner's interpretation of God's assumed and highly subjective view on the issue. Personally, I don't think that any god worth his salt could have a reasonable objection to euthanasia, so long as it's very carefully regulated and sensitively approached.
Chris B, England

How dare Will Faulkner claim to have a direct hotline by which he knows the Lord's wishes? If there is a God, and he has permitted mankind to develop their medical knowledge to the point where it is possible to relieve pain and suffering, then is it not that God's wish that such technology should be used? Let's leave God out of this, and decide as mature humans whether or not people of sound mind may authorise others to end their lives in certain, exceptional circumstances. I would certainly NOT be in favour of a general right to be enacted in favour of euthanasia, but I can accept that in certain cases like Diane Pretty's common sense may allow an exception to be made.
Don, UK

I suppose Will Faulkner therefore believes we should all stop using modern medicine too?
Richard, UK

Will Faulkner, I take it that if faced with a life threatening illness you would shun the use of drugs to prolong your life? After all that too would be against God's wishes and nature. It works both ways, if people cannot end their lives when they want then do you propose that people cannot extend it too.
Andy C, UK

Will those religious people who insist on denying people their freedoms in the name of their superstition of choice ever stop to realise that some of us do not share their mythology and so cannot consider their strictures as binding in any way? Those of us who live mentally in the twenty-first century consider ourselves as perfectly competent moral arbiters and masters of our own destiny, and we do not need the perpetual intrusions of the religious to tell us how we may best live our own lives.
Steve Payne, UK

Mr Will Faulkner from Hale is wrong. I don't believe in God. So why should I suffer because of his religious conscience if I decided to die with dignity when I can. God has nothing to do with this matter and it is all about personal freedom of choice. If God was really out there, he wouldn't want to see Mrs Pretty suffer so much.
Liang Ji, chinese in High Wycombe

We cannot sanction this practice on the whole, but it must be considered and granted on a case-by-case basis

Jason Channing, UK

It's only fair that if all avenues for a dignified and pain-free life are closed, death by choice is an option. The fact that Diane Pretty is unable to take her own life and needs the help of her husband, only deepens the pain she must be going through. This couple must sit back and endure the pain and suffering because a judge and the House of Lords have decided they know better. Clearly we cannot sanction this practice on the whole, but it must be considered and granted on a case-by-case basis. Clearly this case is exceptional.
Jason Channing, UK

The ruling is wrong. Diane, and anyone else in her position, should be able to have the support of those who love her, to end her life in a dignified manner.
John Atkins, England