Pretty v United Kingdom
2002 European Court of Human Rights case
Pretty v. United Kingdom (2346/02) was a case decided by European Court of Human Rights in 2002.
Facts
Diane Pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease and was paralysed from the neck down, had little decipherable speech and was fed by a tube. It is not a crime to kill oneself under English law, but the applicant was prevented by her disease from taking such a step without assistance. It is however a crime to assist another to kill themselves (section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961).
Pretty wanted her husband to provide her with assistance in suicide. Because giving this assistance would expose the husband to liability, the Director of Public Prosecutions was asked to agree not to prosecute her husband. This request was refused, as was Pretty's appeal before the Law Lords.
Judgment
In a unanimous judgment, the Court, composed of seven judges, found Pretty's application under articles 2, 3, 8, 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights admissible, but found no violation of the Convention.
Significant conclusions include that "no right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority, can be derived from Article 2 of the Convention".
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Pretty v United Kingdom” is 2002 European Court of Human Rights case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Pretty, United and Kingdom, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2002 European Court of Human Rights case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2077005. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2002 and 1961.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Pretty v United Kingdom”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Pretty v United Kingdom primary sources, Pretty v United Kingdom archive and Pretty research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pretty v United Kingdom”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Pretty v United Kingdom” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.