Rdm Tugas 2

Oleh Takezz V

68 KB 4 tayangan 0 unduhan
 
Bagikan artikel

Transkrip Rdm Tugas 2

Jonathan Hendson Passagi 15/381767/HK/20483 Research & Methodology Assignment 2 1. What are the relevant facts (the case) that form the basis of the judgement A 43-year-old woman named Ms. D. Pretty suffered from motor neurone disease (MND), a progressive degenerative disease of motor cells within the central nervous system. The disease caused her suffering of paralysis and her mental was affected, which she was frustated that she could not control the disease, or when will she die so that she can die in peace. Then she asked for her husband to assist her to end her suffer through euthanasia, so that she can rest in peace. Although self-suicide is not prohibited in UK, but due to her disease, she need asssitance from her husband. In 27 July 20011, her solicitor sent a letter to Director of Public Prosecutions so that her husband Mr. B. Pretty would not be prosecuted for assisting her suicide based on her request, in which DPP refused on 8 August 2011 thorugh a letter. 2. Which is at stake in these proceedings The applicants (Ms. D Pretty and Mr. D. Pretty) want the DPP not to prosecute Mr. B Pretty for his action to assist Mr. D. Pretty to commit suicide, because it was on her consent and referring to Article 2 of 1998 Convention that covers about rights to life, in which the article acknowledges individual right, thus a person may refuse a life-saving cure and may lawfully choose to commit suicide. 3. What is the issue in relation to element 2 An article with that interpretation can not be considered as conferring a right to die or to request the aid of another in assisting about one’s own death. If the goverment intervent or prohibit such action, the goverment has violated the articles and limiting individual rights regarding to their own life matter. 4. What are the view of the opposing parties and others, and on which grounds? The applicant argues based on article 2, 1998 of Human Rights convention, in which on their understanding article 2 grants individual the rights to life, meaning individual may freely choose to continue their life or commit suicide. To some extend, the applicant insist that to end her life she can request for her husband asssitance to help her commit suicide due to the physical inability causing the applicant incapable to commit suicide on her own. The goverment can not prosecute her husband because it was on her own consent to ask for her husband assitance and refusing prolong medication. The respondent argues that it cannot however be suggested that articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Human Rights confer an implied right to do or experience the opposite of that which the articles guarantee. Whatever the benefits which, in the view of many, attach to voluntary euthanasia, suicide, physician-assisted suicide and suicide assisted without the intervention of a physician, these are not benefits which derive protection from an article framed to protect the sanctity of life. Instead of requesting for 3rd party assitance (which is her husband), the goverment offered to provide prolong medication to sustain the health of the applicant. 5. Which rules apply in this case ? Suicide ceased to be a crime in England and Wales by virtue of the Suicide Act 1961. However, section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 provides: “A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Section 2(4) provides: “No proceedings shall be instituted for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” 6. How does the court assess these rules in relation to the fact? The court assess the fact based on the rules. The applicant request based on Article 2 of Human Rights, 1998 that granted rights to life. However the applicant misinterpret the article as it allows the applicant to request for assitance to commit suicide in which it is against the Suicide Act, 1961 that prohibit suicide assistance, and further analysis interpret article 2 implicit meaning that suicide can onl be done on one’s consent not by others assistance that requires their consent. 7. How the legal rule established by this judgement should be worded 8. Whta is the outside world telling you about this judgement The final verdict declined the applicant request. If the goverment grants the applicant request, society and human rights activist/organisations can protest the goverment due to the failure to guarantee and ensure one’s life that leads to self suicide. Also by refusing the request, the goverment surely is in line with the convention to respect human rights. Assisted self suicide can not be accepted as it is not only requiring one’s consent, but also the 3rd party consent to help, in which it is clearly violates article 2 that only prioritize one’s consent

Judul: Rdm Tugas 2

Oleh: Takezz V

Ikuti kami