Related Experiment Videos
Ms B and Diane Pretty: a commentary
1University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013, USA. psinger@princeton.edu
Journal of Medical Ethics
|August 6, 2002
Summary
Competent adults, like Ms B and Mrs Pretty, should have the right to choose the manner of their death. Legal distinctions in end-of-life choices for paralyzed individuals lack a moral basis.
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Legal Studies
- Bioethics
Background:
- Recent court cases involving paralyzed competent adults (Ms B and Mrs Pretty) highlight differing legal outcomes regarding end-of-life decisions.
- Ms B was permitted to end her life through treatment withdrawal, while Mrs Pretty was denied assistance in dying.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the legal and moral distinctions between the cases of Ms B and Mrs Pretty.
- To argue for a consistent ethical framework for end-of-life choices for competent adults.
Main Methods:
- Comparative legal analysis of two specific court cases.
- Ethical argumentation based on principles of autonomy and dignity.
Main Results:
- The legal distinction hinges on whether the request is for treatment withdrawal (Ms B) versus active assistance in dying (Mrs Pretty).
- This legal distinction is argued to be morally indefensible.
Conclusions:
- Both Ms B and Mrs Pretty, as competent adults, should have been afforded the choice in how they die.
- The law should be re-evaluated to align with a consistent moral basis for end-of-life autonomy.