THERE is no cause for celebrations at the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the appeal by Diane Pretty.

Although we concur with the findings of the court, we have nothing but sympathy for the tragic plight in which Mrs Pretty finds herself.

It would have been easy for the court to grant a dying woman her fervently held wish. But it was impossible to focus on her individual circumstances alone.

To grant Mrs Pretty's husband immunity from prosecution if he helped her commit suicide would have set a dangerous precedent. In effect, it would have enshrined assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in British law.

While suicide may be the wish of Mrs Pretty, it may not be the wish for other individuals in similar circumstances.

There is no justification for the beliefs of Mrs Pretty and her family, no matter how sincerely they are held, to be given precedence over the beliefs of other people facing similar situations now and in the future.

Had the appeal been won, it may have placed an intolerable pressure on sick people to believe they had become a burden on their relatives and to contemplate seeking help to end their life. Such vulnerable people deserve protection and comfort by the law.

On the medical professionals there would be placed ethical and moral questions they should not have to answer.

Granting freedom of choice to Mrs Pretty would have risked denying freedom of choice to others, and seriously undermined the protection of life, which is a fundamental principle of any civilised society.

Nevertheless, we pay tribute to Mrs Pretty. To suffer the ravages of Motor Neurone Disease while, at the same time, battling for a cause, takes an immense amount of courage.

Her legacy will be that she has raised awareness of this terrible illness, and hopefully her case will advance research into providing better palliative care to sufferers, and possibly help find a cure.