_WORLD WATCH______________________________
___________________ Great Britain ______________

One setback for suicide
Court finds for life, not “death with dignity”
Diane Pretty, the terminally ill woman who sought permission for her husband to help her commit suicide, lost her case in the High Court.

Mrs. Pretty, 42, suffers from motor-neurone disease, and argued that her quality of life has become so low that denying her the opportunity to commit suicide was a breach of her human rights. However, she adds, her physical limitations also make it impossible for her to take her own life. Under British law, it is no longer illegal to commit suicide, but to assist someone in doing so is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment.

In the first case of its kind within the British judicial system, Pretty challenged a refusal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), David Calvert-Smith, to promise that he would not prosecute her husband of 25 years, Brian, if he helped her to kill herself. Doctors supervising her care made it clear that they would not assist in a suicide—even if the courts eventually approved that option.

However, in an October decision, a panel of three High Court judges ruled that no one has the human right to “procure their own death.” They also said that if the DPP agreed not to prosecute her husband, that agreement would be tantamount to a “license to commit crime.”

Summing up the court’s decision, one judge said that Pretty’s human right was “to live with dignity, not die with dignity.” He added, “English law curtails a person’s right to bodily autonomy in the interests of protecting that person’s life even against her own wishes. Thus deliberate killing, even with consent and in the most pitiable of circumstances, is murder.”

Speaking after the ruling, Brian Pretty told reporters that his wife “wants to fight; she wants to take it further.” He said the couple would explore other avenues for legal appeal. Shortly thereafter, attorneys for Diane Pretty announced that she would seek permission to take her appeal to the House of Lords.

Spokesmen for the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement, however, were pleased with the High Court decision. Bishop Peter Smith of East Anglia said that, while “no one can fail to be moved by the suffering of Diane Pretty and her husband,” he welcomed the ruling. Bishop Smith said: “The court has rightly upheld the law prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide, which is there not least to protect the weak and especially vulnerable older people. It is right to alleviate suffering; it is wrong intentionally to kill.”

Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child—which had intervened in the case to oppose Pretty’s petition, said: “Those backing Mrs. Pretty are determined to undermine the right to life of severely disabled people in order to promote the cause of medical killing. It is vital that this case is seen in the wider context of the pressures which might be brought to bear on handicapped people to opt for death.”

On the other hand, two of Britain’s leading academic voices in the field of health care argued that it was “morally wrong” to refuse Diane Pretty’s request. Writing in the British Medical Journal, Prof. Lesley Doyal of Bristol University and her husband Prof. Len Doyal of Queen Mary University of London made the case that both active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. The Doyals argued that if death is in a patient’s best interest, then death constitutes a moral good.

The professors concluded, “Some doctors would probably be only too glad to help Mrs. Pretty end her life. This support should be regarded as a moral good instigated in her interests and at her request. It should be legally condoned, either by the interpretation of existing law by a more courageous judiciary or by new legislation.”

Designer babies
Controversial screening technique approved
Pro-life groups expressed fears that Britain had taken a first step towards genetic engineering after it was revealed early in November that a government oversight authority had “no objection” to a controversial embryo screening technique.

Fertility expert Mohammed Taranissi, of the Assisted Reproduction and Gynecology Unit in London, plans to use the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) method to screen out embryos with even tiny flaws to boost the chances of couples undergoing fertility treatment having a child. The technique, which can weed out embryos which might miscarry or which might have Down’s Syndrome, can now be employed at licensed clinics, since the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) revealed it would not object.

No change in the 1990 legislation on fertility treatment was necessary since PGD had already been allowed for certain diseases, such as when there is a risk of cystic fibrosis, which can be inherited. The HFEA simply allowed the technique to be extended to include screening for other chromosomal mutations.

However, pro-life campaigners warned that PGD is a major step towards genetic engineering. Paul Tully, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told the Daily Mail, “People are mistaken if their concerns about the designer baby scenario are restricted to the idea of someone creating a fair-haired, blue-eyed child with an IQ of 150.” In fact, he argued, “This is where it starts, and it is a slippery slope.” Tully warned that “these arguments are going to be very difficult for society to go back on, once they have approved the principle.”

The HFEA said it would soon carry out a final inspection of Taranissi’s clinic after his embryo-screening equipment was installed. A spokesman made it clear, however, that the inspection would be focused on the quality of the equipment rather than the uses to which it would be put. “We have no objections to the technique being used,” he said.
Taranissi has announced that he is “at the research stage” of creating artificial sperm by taking a chromosome from a potential father’s body cell.

Muslims to outnumber Catholics?
Islamic worshippers grow in numbers
Muslims who worship regularly in English mosques will soon outnumber Catholics who go to Sunday Mass in Britain, according to new projections.

Figures produced by Christian Research, the organization that collates religious statistics, show that the number of practicing Muslims is rising rapidly. In 2000, there were about 620,000 in Britain and there will be an estimated 750,000 by 2005, according to the group’s analysis. If present trends continue, the number of active Muslims will outstrip practicing Catholics in about 2013, said Dr. Peter Brierley, a former government statistician who is the executive director of Christian Research. Practicing Muslims are expected to outnumber all Christians in Britain who attend Sunday services by 2039.

Brierley stressed that his figures referred only to Muslims who regularly visit mosques and Christians who actually go to church on Sundays. Christians who go to services at other times of the week could add 10 percent to that total, he said.

A spokesman for the Council of Mosques told the Daily Telegraph that Muslim worship is thriving. “Every Friday most mosques are full, and they are full of young adults,” he said.

Back to Catholic World Report December 2001 Table of Contents