View source for Right to life

{{short description|Belief that a being should not be killed by another entity}}
{{other uses}}
{{Rights}}
The '''right to life''' is the belief that a [[human]] (or other [[animal]]) has the [[right]] to [[Life|live]] and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity. The concept of a right to life arises in debates on issues including: [[capital punishment]], with some people seeing it as [[immoral]]; [[abortion]], with some considering the killing of a human [[embryo]] or [[fetus]] immoral; [[euthanasia]], in which the decision to end one's life outside of natural means is seen as incorrect; [[Ethics of eating meat|meat production and consumption]], in which the breeding and killing of animals for their meat is seen by some people as an infringement on their rights; and in killings by law enforcement, which are seen by some as an infringement on those persons' right to live. However, individuals may disagree in which of these areas the principle of a right to life might apply.

==Abortion==
{{See also|Abortion debate|Abortion-rights movements|Anti-abortion movement}}The term "right to life" is used in the [[abortion debate]] by those who wish to end the practice of [[abortion]], or at least reduce the frequency of the practice,<ref name=rhetoric>Solomon, Martha. [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED151883&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED151883 "The Rhetoric of Right to Life: Beyond the Court's Decision"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724163231/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true |date=2009-07-24 }} Paper presented at the Southern Speech Communication Association (Atlanta, Georgia, April 4–7, 1978)</ref> and in the context of [[pregnancy]], the term ''right to life'' was advanced by [[Pope Pius XII]] during a 1951 [[papal encyclical]]:

<blockquote>Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no "indication" at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life
:— Pope Pius XII, ''Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession'' Papal Encyclical, October 29, 1951.<ref>"Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession", 29 October 1951. Pope Pius XII.</ref></blockquote>

In 1966 the [[United States Conference of Catholic Bishops|National Conference of Catholic Bishops]] (NCCB) asked Fr. [[James T. McHugh]] to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the [[United States]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://galeapps.galegroup.com/apps/auth?userGroupName=tel_s_tsla&origURL=http%3A%2F%2Fgo.galegroup.com%2Fps%2Fretrieve.do%3FsgHitCountType%3DNone%26sort%3DDA-SORT%26inPS%3Dtrue%26prodId%3DGPS%26userGroupName%3Dtel_s_tsla%26tabID%3DT002%26searchId%3DR3%26resultListType%3DRESULT_LIST%26contentSegment%3D%26searchType%3DBasicSearchForm%26currentPosition%3D10%26contentSet%3DGALE%257CA262387307%26%26docId%3DGALE%257CA262387307%26docType%3DGALE%26role%3DITOF%26docLevel%3DFULLTEXT&prodId=GPS|title=Gale - Product Login|website=galeapps.galegroup.com|access-date=2019-07-18}}</ref> The [[National Right to Life Committee]] (NRLC) was founded in 1967 as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.<ref name="christianlifeandliberty.net">http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/RTL.bmp K.M. Cassidy. "Right to Life."  In Dictionary of Christianity in America, Coordinating Editor, Daniel G. Reid.  Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990. pp. 1017,1018.</ref><ref>"God's Own Party The Making of the Religious Right", pp. 113-116. {{ISBN|978-0-19-534084-6}}. Daniel K. Williams. Oxford University Press. 2010.</ref> To appeal to a more broad-based, nonsectarian movement, key [[Minnesota]] leaders proposed an organizational model that would separate the NRLC from the direct oversight of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and by early 1973 NRLC Director Fr. James T. McHugh and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC move toward its independence from the [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]].

===Ethics and right to life===
{{See also|Abortion debate|Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate|Infanticide}}
Some [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]] [[ethicist]]s argue that the "right to life", where it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the [[human species]]. The [[philosopher]] [[Peter Singer]] is a notable proponent of this argument. For Singer, the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. This extends the concept to non-human animals, such as other [[ape]]s, but since the unborn, infants and severely [[Disability|disabled]] people lack this, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be "justified" (but are not obligatory) in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of a disabled infant whose life would be one of suffering.<ref name=singer>Singer, Peter. [https://books.google.com/books?id=OZOmSTWZNdcC&dq=%22Peter+Singer%22+abortion&pg=PA143 ''Practical ethics''] Cambridge University Press (1993), 2nd revised ed., {{ISBN|0-521-43971-X}}</ref>

[[Bioethics|Bioethicists]] associated with [[Disability Rights|disability rights]] and [[Disability Studies|disability studies]] communities have argued that Singer's [[epistemology]] is based on [[Ableism|ableist]] conceptions of disability.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Writings on an Ethical Life|first=Peter|last=Singer|chapter=An Interview|year=2001|pages=319–329|publisher=Fourth Estate |isbn=978-1841155500}}</ref>

==Capital punishment==
{{further|Capital punishment#Religious views}}
Opponents of [[capital punishment]] argue that it is a violation of the right to life, while its supporters argue that the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life because the right to life should apply with deference to a sense of [[Criminal justice|justice]]. The opponents believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of [[human rights]], because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the [[Death row|condemned]] a [[psychological torture]]. [[Human rights activists]] oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment", and [[Amnesty International]] considers it to be "the ultimate, irreversible denial of Human Rights".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|title=Abolish the death penalty|publisher=Amnesty International|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100830062328/http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|archive-date=30 August 2010}}</ref>

The [[United Nations General Assembly]] has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldcoalition.org/united-nations-resolution-moratorium-death-penalty-executions-general-assembly.html|title=117 countries vote for a global moratorium on executions|work=World Coalition Against the Death Penalty|date=19 December 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402095919/http://www.worldcoalition.org/united-nations-resolution-moratorium-death-penalty-executions-general-assembly.html|archive-date=2015-04-02}}</ref> non-binding resolutions calling for a [[UN moratorium on the death penalty|global moratorium on executions]], with a view to eventual abolition.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24679&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly|title=moratorium on the death penalty|publisher=United Nations|date=15 November 2007|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110127183625/http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24679&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly|archive-date=27 January 2011}}</ref>

== Killings by law enforcement ==
{{See also|Lists of killings by law enforcement officers|Police brutality}}
The International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|title=International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170828234230/http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|archive-date=2017-08-28|url-status=live}}</ref> has created a system whereby it is recognised that [[international human rights law]] is binding upon all [[State (polity)|state]] actors, and that said state actors must know and be capable of applying international standards for human rights. The right to life is for the most part an inalienable right granted to every human upon the planet, however, there are certain situations in which state actors are required to take drastic action, which can result in civilians being [[Lethal force|killed]] by [[law enforcement]] agents.

Appropriate occasions for [[Lists of killings by law enforcement officers|killings by law enforcement]] are strictly outlined by the International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement. Any lethal action taken by law enforcement agents must be taken following a certain set of rules that have been set out in the '[[Use of force|Use of Force]]' section of the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police.<ref name="auto" /> The essential tenet of the Pocket Book<ref name="auto" /> surrounding the use of lethal force is that all other means of a non-violent nature should be employed initially, followed by proportionately appropriate use of force. Proportionately appropriate use of force can, and will in some circumstances, refer to lethal force if a law enforcement agent genuinely believes that ending the life of one civilian would result in the preservation of his life, or the lives of his fellow civilians, as is outlined in the 'Permissible Circumstances for the Use of [[Firearm]]s' section of the Pocket Book.<ref name="auto" /> The Pocket Book<ref name="auto" /> also outlines in the 'Accountability for the Use of Force and Firearms' section that there are stringent measures of accountability in place to maintain integrity within state law enforcement agencies as regards their right to the use of lethal force.

[[International organization|International institutions]] have outlined when and where law enforcement agents might have the availability of lethal force at their disposal. The [[International Association of Chiefs of Police]] have 'Model Policies' which incorporate various pieces of information from leading sources.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theiacp.org/Model-Policy|title=IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center|website=www.theiacp.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911163614/http://www.theiacp.org/Model-Policy|archive-date=2017-09-11|url-status=live|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref> One of these model policies states that law enforcement agents will engage in reasonable necessary force to efficiently bring a scenario to a conclusion, giving specific thought to both the safety of themselves and other civilians. Law enforcement officers are given the prerogative to engage in department-approved methods to safely bring a conclusion to a scenario and are also given the ability to use issued equipment to resolve issues in scenarios where they are required to protect themselves or others from damage, to bring [[Resisting arrest|resistant individuals]] under control, or to safely conclude unlawful incidents. There is no mention as to what "reasonably necessary" should be interpreted as meaning, but there is reference made to the [[Reasonable person|reasonable man]] method of determining how one should approach a scenario.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alpert & Smith|title=How Reasonable Is the Reasonable Man: Police and Excessive Force|journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology|volume= 85| issue = 2|pages=487}}</ref> However, it has been highlighted through events such as the [[Shooting of Michael Brown|killing of Michael Brown]] by Darren Wilson in [[Ferguson, Missouri]],<ref>{{Cite news|title=Michael Brown's Shooting and Its Immediate Aftermath in Ferguson|work=N.Y. TIMES |date=August 25, 2014}}</ref> which resulted in [[Ferguson unrest|public unrest]], that there is confusion and debate surrounding the use of firearms and lethal force. The 'Procedure for the Use of Firearms' section provides the process through which law enforcement agents must progress when using firearms. It states that they must identify themselves as a [[law enforcement agent]], issue a clear warning, and give an adequate amount of time for response (providing that time would not likely result in harm being done to the agent or other civilians) before [[deadly force]] can be used within the bounds of international law.

While the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police outlines the academic circumstances under which law enforcement agents may use lethal force, the literal scenarios in which police killings have occurred are also relevant. Rosenfeld<ref>Richard Rosenfeld, Founders Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.</ref> states that there is considerable literature that gives reason to believe that social conditions also have a part to play in how law enforcement killings can occur. Rosenfeld states that there are numerous studies that have been conducted which link law enforcement agents' use of lethal force to the area's rate of [[violent crime]], the size of the non[[Indigenous peoples|-indigenous population]] and the [[Socioeconomics|socioeconomic]] position of the community concerned.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rosenfeld|first=Richard|title=Ferguson and Police Use of Deadly Force|journal=Missouri Law Review|pages= 1087}}</ref> Appropriating a blanket description of how police killings can occur across the board is difficult given the vast differences in social context from state to state.

Perry, Hall and Hall<ref>Alison V. Hall, University of Texas-Arlington, Erika V. Hall, Emory University, Jamie L. Perry, Cornell University.</ref> discuss the [[Police brutality in the United States|phenomena across the United States of America]] which became highly charged and widely documented in late 2014, referring to the use of lethal force from white police officers on unarmed black male civilians.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hall, Hall & Perry|title=Black and Blue: Exploring Racial Bias and Law Enforcement Killings of Unarmed Black Male Civilians|url=https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/887|journal=American Psychologist|volume= 71| issue =  3, 2016|pages= 175–186|doi=10.1037/a0040109|pmid=27042881|year=2016|hdl=1813/71445|hdl-access=free}}</ref> There is no legal prerogative which gives law enforcement agents the ability to use lethal force based on the race of the person they are dealing with, there is only a legal prerogative to engage in lethal force if there is a reasonable fear for your life or the lives of others. However, the [[ProPublica|Propublica]] analysis of federal data on [[List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States|fatal police shootings]] between 2010 and 2012, showed that young black male civilians were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white male civilians.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Deadly Force in Black and White: A ProPublica analysis of killings by police shows outsize risk for young black males|last=Gabrielson, Sagara & Jones|date=October 10, 2014|work=ProPublica}}</ref> The use of lethal force from law enforcement agents in the United States created widespread feeling amongst US [[Citizenship|citizens]] that they were not being protected by the police. The justice system mostly found that these agents acted within the boundaries of the law because the actions of the people who were shot were judged to be sufficiently questionable in character for the police officer to fear for their own life or the lives of others. Coppolo<ref>Attorney George Coppolo, Chief Attorney for the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research.</ref> investigated [[Law of Connecticut|Connecticut law]] and reported that the use of lethal force must be followed by a report that determines whether the law enforcement agent's lethal force was proportionately necessary in the circumstances. Coppolo also stated that a reasonable lethal response must only be made when there is a reasonable belief that the facts you have been presented with could realistically result in a risk of death or grievous bodily harm.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Coppolo|first=George|title=Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement Officers|journal=OLR Research Report, Feb. 1, 2008.}}</ref>

== Animals ==
{{See also|Ethics of eating meat|Sentiocentrism|Argument from marginal cases}}
In ''[[Animal Liberation (book)|Animal Liberation]]'', [[Peter Singer]] writes that the killing of animals for the consumption of their meat should be seen as immoral and a violation of their right to life. He holds that rights should be based on sentience, rather than species membership.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UYLAsgEACAAJ |title=Animal Liberation |date=2015 |publisher=Bodley Head |isbn=978-1-84792-384-4 |pages=49–53 |language=en}}</ref>

Numerous authors have invoked the [[argument from marginal cases]] to argue that animals should have similar moral status to human infants, senile people, the [[coma]]tose, and [[Cognition|cognitively]] disabled people.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SSH3ai Animals and Ethics – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref><ref>Regan, Tom "An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights", ''Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy'' 22, 1979, 189–219</ref><ref>Pluhar, E. ''Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals'', Durham: Duke University Press, 1995</ref><ref name="Horta 2014">Horta, Oscar. "The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap", ''Journal of Applied Philosophy'', 31, 2014, 142-154.</ref>

A 2020 survey of around 1800 published English-language philosophers found that 48% said it was permissible to eat animals in ordinary circumstances, while 45% said it was not.<ref name="Weinberg 2021">{{cite web |author=Justin Weinberg |date=2021-11-01 |title=What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey |url=https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-results-from-the-2020-philpapers-survey/ |access-date=2021-12-31 |website=Daily Nous}}</ref>

==Euthanasia==
{{main|Legality of euthanasia}}
Those who believe a person should be able to make the decision to end their own life through [[euthanasia]] use the argument that persons have a ''right to choose'',<ref>1999, Jennifer M. Scherer, Rita James Simon, Euthanasia and the Right to Die: A Comparative View, Page 27</ref> while those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia argue so on the grounds that all persons have a right to life, {{failed verification span|text=which they interpret as an ''obligation to live''.|reason=No mention of this interpretation in the article|date=March 2025}}<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37838/cnns-2016-hero-of-the-year-fights-euthanasia-of-children-in-colombia | title=CNN's 2016 Hero of the Year fights euthanasia of children in Colombia }}</ref> They are commonly referred to as ''right-to-lifers''.<ref>1998, Roswitha Fischer, Lexical Change in Present-day English, page 126</ref>

[[European Convention on Human Rights|The European Convention]] on Human Rights defended the possibility of the existence of a "[[right to die]]" through the application of euthanasia and granting the individual the right to choose the method of implementing this type of dying, considering that the latter is one of the parts of the right to life.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kyrsanova, Maryna |date=June 2020 |title=The right to euthanasia in the context of the right to life guaranteed by the European Convention of human rights |pages=105–110 |work=Law and innovations |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342938748}}</ref>

==Juridical statements==
*In 1444, the [[Poljica Statute]] declared a right to live "-for nothing existed forever".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Marušić|first1=Juraj|title=Sumpetarski kartular i poljička seljačka republika|date=1992|publisher=Književni Krug Split|location=Split, Croatia|isbn=978-86-7397-076-9|page=129|edition=  1st}}</ref>
*In 1776, the [[Declaration of Independence (United States)#Principles of the United States Declaration of Independence .28complete original text with brief explanations.29|United States Declaration of Independence]] declared that "[[all men are created equal]], that they are endowed by their [[Creator deity|Creator]] with certain [[Inalienable rights|unalienable Rights]], that among these are [[Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness|Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]]".
*In 1948, the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], adopted by the [[United Nations General Assembly]] declared in article three:
{{cquote|Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.}}
*In 1950, the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] was adopted by the [[Council of Europe]], declaring a protected human right to life in [[Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 2]]. There are exceptions for lawful executions and self-defense, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the convention has called for nations to outlaw [[capital punishment]] except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the council. Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the council.
*In 1966, the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] was adopted by the [[United Nations General Assembly]].
{{cquote|Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.|||Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights}}
*In 1969, the [[American Convention on Human Rights]] was adopted in [[San José, Costa Rica|San José]], Costa Rica by many countries in the [[Western Hemisphere]]. It is in force in 23 countries.
{{cquote|Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.|||Article 4.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights}}
*In 1982, the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] enshrined that
{{cquote|Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.|||Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms}}
*In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]] (CRC).
*The [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]] holds the principle of [[human dignity]] paramount, even above the right to life.
*The Catholic Church has issued a ''[[Charter of the Rights of the Family]]''<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html Pontifical Council for the Family.  ''The Family and Human Rights''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080319014620/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html |date=2008-03-19 }} Vatican website.  Retrieved 2011-07-09.</ref> in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity.
*Article 21 of the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]], 1950, guarantees the right to life to all persons within the territory of India and states: "No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Article 21 confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which has become an inexhaustible source of many other rights.<ref>''Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India'' AIR 1978 SC 597</ref>

The right to life is considered the most important and first right urged by the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is a right granted to all persons, which makes it necessary in the system of basic human rights and freedoms that this Convention works to protect and preserve.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Catalina Georgeta |date=2023-05-19 |title=Does the Right to Life include the Right to Die? |pages=19–24 |work=SERIES VII - SOCIAL SCIENCES AND LAW |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370918365}}</ref>

== Maps ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Subject
!Map
!Legend
|-
|[[Abortion]]
|{{Css Image Crop|Image =Abortion Laws.svg|bSize = 256|cWidth = 256|cHeight = 128}} 
|
{{plainlist|
*{{color box|#40D0FF}} No [[Gestational age (obstetrics)|gestational limit]]
*{{color box|#4080FF}} Gestational limit after the first 17 weeks
*{{color box|#3465A4}} Gestational limit in the first 17 weeks
*{{color box|#A000FF}} Unclear gestational limit
*Legally restricted to cases of:
*{{color box|#73D216}} [[Maternal death|Risk to woman's life]], [[Complications of pregnancy|to her health]]*, [[rape]]*, [[Birth defect|fetal impairment]]*, or [[Socioeconomic status|socioeconomic factors]]
*{{color box|#EDD400}} Risk to woman's life, to her health*, rape, or fetal impairment
* {{color box|#F540F5}} Risk to woman's life, to her health*, or fetal impairment
* {{color box|#C17D11}} Risk to woman's life*, to her health*, or rape
* {{color box|#F57900}} Risk to woman's life or to her health
* {{color box|#CC0000}} Risk to woman's life
* {{color box|#000000}} Illegal with no exceptions
* {{color box|#B9B9B9}} No information
* {{asterisk}} Does not apply to some countries in that category.
}}
|-
|[[Euthanasia]]
|{{Css Image Crop|Image =Legality of euthanasia.svg|bSize = 256|cWidth = 256|cHeight = 128}} 
|
{{plainlist|
*{{Legend|#0000ffff|Active voluntary euthanasia legal (Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal,{{efn|name=PortugalNote|'''Portugal''': Law not yet in force, awaits regulation to be implemented. The law legalizing euthanasia, Law n.º 22/2023, of 22 May,<ref name=22-2023-213498831/> states in Article 31 that the regulation must be approved within 90 days of the publishing of the law, which would have been 23 August 2023. However, the regulation has not yet been approved by the government. On 24 November 2023, the Ministry of Health stated that the regulation of the law would be the responsibility of the new government elected in the 10 March 2024 elections.<ref name="Observador">{{cite news |last1=Caeiro |first1=Tiago |title=Eutanásia não avança para já. Ministério da Saúde deixa regulamentação para o próximo governo |url=https://observador.pt/2023/11/24/eutanasia-nao-avanca-para-ja-ministerio-da-saude-deixa-regulamentacao-para-o-proximo-governo/ |trans-title=Euthanasia is not moving forward for now. Ministry of Health leaves regulation to the next government |access-date=14 January 2024 |work=Observador |date=24 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231202164552/https://observador.pt/2023/11/24/eutanasia-nao-avanca-para-ja-ministerio-da-saude-deixa-regulamentacao-para-o-proximo-governo/ |archive-date=2 December 2023 |language=Portuguese}}</ref> The law, according to its Article 34, will only enter into force 30 days after the regulation is published.}} Spain, Uruguay and the Australian states of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia)}}
{{Legend|#00afffff|Passive euthanasia legal (refusal of treatment/withdrawal of life support)}}
{{Legend|#ddddddff|Active euthanasia illegal, passive euthanasia not legislated or regulated}}
{{Legend|#c60000ff|All forms of euthanasia illegal}}
}}
|-
|[[Capital punishment]]
|{{Css Image Crop|Image =Capital punishment in the world.svg|bSize = 256|cWidth = 256|cHeight = 128}} 
|
{{plainlist|
* {{legend|#FF0000|Maintain the death penalty in both law and practice}}
* {{legend|#D59348|Abolished in practice (no execution in over 10 years and under a moratorium)}}
* {{legend|#80E000|Abolished in law, except in exceptional circumstances, such as war}}
* {{legend|#008080|Completely abolished}}
}}
|-
|[[Cattle slaughter]]
|{{Css Image Crop|Image =Status of cow slaughter in India.png|bSize = 256|cWidth = 256}} 
|
|}

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=28em}}
* [[Abortion law]]
* [[Abortion rights]]
* [[Anti-abortion]]
* [[Anti-abortion feminism]]
* [[Argument from marginal cases]]
* [[Baby K]]
* [[Bodily integrity]]
* [[Bioethics]]
* [[Biocentrism (ethics)]]
* [[Consistent life ethic]]
* [[Culture of life]]
* [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]]
* [[Deontology]]
* [[Fetal rights]]
* [[Foeticide]]
* [[Human dignity]]
* [[Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]]
* [[Life unworthy of life]]
* [[Moral agency]]
* [[Moral rights]]
* [[Moral skepticism]]
* [[National Right to Life Committee]]
* [[Haleigh Poutre]]
* [[Nonkilling]]
* [[Personhood]]
* [[Pharmacists for Life International]]
* [[Quality of life]]
* [[Reverence for Life]]
* [[Rights]]
* [[Right to die]]
* [[Sanctity of life]]
* [[Sentience]]
* [[Speciesism]]
* [[Terri Schiavo]]
{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://childrensrightsportal.org/fundamental-rights/life/ Right to Life] on the [http://childrensrightsportal.org/ Children's Rights Portal]
* [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm ''Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession''. Pius XII. October 29, 1951.]

{{Western culture}}
{{Particular human rights}}
{{Liberty}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Human rights by issue]]
[[Category:Anti-abortion movements|Right to life]]
[[Category:Political movements]]
[[Category:Opposition to the death penalty]]
[[Category:Euthanasia]]