title: Ms B and Diane Pretty: a commentary.
abstract: In two recent court cases, Ms B, a paralysed competent adult, was allowed to end her life; Mrs Pretty, another paralysed competent adult, was not. In legal terms, the essential difference between the two cases is that Ms B was seeking the withdrawal of treatment, whereas Mrs Pretty was asking for assistance in ending her life. I argue that while this distinction may accurately state the law that governs these situations, it does not rest on a defensible moral basis. Both the women should have been allowed to choose the manner in which they would die.
authors.affiliation: University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013, USA. psinger@princeton.edu
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Singer
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005060:Europe; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016743:Mental Competency; D012297:Right to Die / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006113:United Kingdom
keywords: Death and Euthanasia; Legal Approach; Professional Patient Relationship