Right to life

Last updated

The right to life is the belief that a human (or other animal) has the right to 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; 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.

Contents

Abortion

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, [1] and in the context of pregnancy, the term right to life was advanced by Pope Pius XII during a 1951 papal encyclical:

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. [2]

In 1966 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) asked Fr. James T. McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States. [3] 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. [4] [5] 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 Roman Catholic Church.

Ethics and right to life

Some utilitarian ethicists 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 apes, but since the unborn, infants and severely 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. [6]

Bioethicists associated with disability rights and disability studies communities have argued that Singer's epistemology is based on ableist conceptions of disability. [7]

Capital punishment

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 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 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". [8]

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 [9] non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition. [10]

Killings by law enforcement

The International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement [11] has created a system whereby it is recognised that international human rights law is binding upon all 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 killed by law enforcement agents.

Appropriate occasions for 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' section of the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police. [11] The essential tenet of the Pocket Book [11] 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 Firearms' section of the Pocket Book. [11] The Pocket Book [11] 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 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. [12] 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 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 man method of determining how one should approach a scenario. [13] However, it has been highlighted through events such as the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, [14] which resulted in 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 [15] 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 population and the socioeconomic position of the community concerned. [16] 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 [17] discuss the 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. [18] 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 analysis of federal data on 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. [19] The use of lethal force from law enforcement agents in the United States created widespread feeling amongst US 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 [20] investigated 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. [21]

Animals

In 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. [22]

Numerous authors have invoked the argument from marginal cases to argue that animals should have similar moral status to human infants, senile people, the comatose, and cognitively disabled people. [23] [24] [25] [26]

A 2020 survey of 1812 published English-language philosophers found that 48% said it was permissible to eat animals in ordinary circumstances, while 45% said it was not. [27]

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, [28] while those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia argue so on the grounds that all persons have a right to life, which they interpret as an obligation to live. [29] They are commonly referred to as right-to-lifers. [30]

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. [31]

Juridical statements

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

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

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

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


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. [35]

See also

Related Research Articles

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Five precepts</span> Basic code of ethics for Buddhist lay people

The five precepts or five rules of training is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the Ten Commandments in Abrahamic religions or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of war</span> International regulations of warfare

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deadly force</span> Use of force, likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person

Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

The abortion debate is a longstanding and contentious discourse that touches on the moral, legal, medical, and religious aspects of induced abortion. In English-speaking countries, the debate has two major sides, commonly referred to as the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. Generally, supporters of pro-choice argue for the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. They take into account various factors such as the stage of fetal development, the health of the woman, and the circumstances of the conception. By comparison, the supporters of pro-life generally argue that a fetus is a human being with inherent rights and intrinsic value, and thus, cannot be overridden by the woman's choice or circumstances and that abortion is morally wrong in most or all cases. Both terms are considered loaded words in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred in order to avoid bias.

The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defense to culpable homicide. Generally, there is a burden to produce exculpatory evidence in the legal defense of justification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary execution</span> Execution without trial

In civil and military jurisprudence, summary execution is the putting to death of a person accused of a crime without the benefit of a free and fair trial. The term results from the legal concept of summary justice to punish a summary offense, as in the case of a drumhead court-martial, but the term usually denotes the summary execution of a sentence of death. Under international law, it is a combatant's refusal to accept an opponent's lawful surrender and the combatant's provision of no quarter, by killing the surrendering opponents.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is the oldest and largest national anti-abortion organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and more than 3,000 local chapters nationwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-aggression principle</span> Core concept in libertarianism in the United States

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), also called the Non-Aggression Axiom, the non-coercion principle, the non-initiation of force and the zero aggression principle, is a concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited. Interpretations of the NAP vary, particularly concerning issues like intellectual property, force, and abortion.

Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises from both common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than excuse.

Mary Anne Warren was an American writer and philosophy professor, noted for her writings on the issue of abortion and animal rights.

The philosophical aspects of the abortion debate are logical arguments that can be made either in support of or in opposition to abortion. The philosophical arguments in the abortion debate are deontological or rights-based. The view that all or almost all abortion should be illegal generally rests on the claims that (1) the existence and moral right to life of human beings begins at or near conception-fertilization; that (2) induced abortion is the deliberate and unjust killing of the embryo in violation of its right to life; and that (3) the law should prohibit unjust violations of the right to life. The view that abortion should in most or all circumstances be legal generally rests on the claims that (1) women have a right to control what happens in and to their own bodies; that (2) abortion is a just exercise of this right; and that (3) the law should not criminalize just exercises of the right to control one's own body and its life-support functions.

In the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 protects the right to life. The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 and 13, for those parties who are also parties to those protocols.

Professor David Simon Oderberg is an Australian philosopher of metaphysics and ethics based in Britain since 1987. He is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading. He describes himself as a non-consequentialist or a traditionalist in his works. Broadly speaking, Oderberg places himself in opposition to Peter Singer and other utilitarian or consequentialist thinkers. He has published over thirty academic papers and has authored six books: The Metaphysics of Good and Evil, Opting Out: Conscience and Cooperation in a Pluralistic Society, Real Essentialism, Applied Ethics, Moral Theory, and The Metaphysics of Identity over Time. Professor Oderberg is an alumnus of the Universities of Melbourne, where he completed his first degrees, and Oxford where he gained his D.Phil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Eswatini</span>

Eswatini, Africa's last remaining absolute monarchy, was rated by Freedom House from 1972 to 1992 as "Partly Free"; since 1993, it has been considered "Not Free". During these years the country's Freedom House rating for "Political Rights" has slipped from 4 to 7, and "Civil Liberties" from 2 to 5. Political parties have been banned in Eswatini since 1973. A 2011 Human Rights Watch report described the country as being "in the midst of a serious crisis of governance", noting that "[y]ears of extravagant expenditure by the royal family, fiscal indiscipline, and government corruption have left the country on the brink of economic disaster". In 2012, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) issued a sharp criticism of Eswatini's human-rights record, calling on the Swazi government to honor its commitments under international law in regards to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. HRW notes that owing to a 40% unemployment rate and low wages that oblige 80% of Swazis to live on less than US$2 a day, the government has been under "increasing pressure from civil society activists and trade unionists to implement economic reforms and open up the space for civil and political activism" and that dozens of arrests have taken place "during protests against the government's poor governance and human rights record".

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

The issue of human rights in Tanzania, a nation with a 2012 population of 44,928,923, is complex. In its 2013 Freedom in the World report, Freedom House declared the country "Partly Free".

The following outline is provided as an overview of and a topical guide to death:

References

  1. ↑ Solomon, Martha. "The Rhetoric of Right to Life: Beyond the Court's Decision" Archived 2009-07-24 at the Wayback Machine Paper presented at the Southern Speech Communication Association (Atlanta, Georgia, April 4–7, 1978)
  2. ↑ "Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession", 29 October 1951. Pope Pius XII.
  3. ↑ "Gale - Product Login". galeapps.galegroup.com. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ "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.
  6. ↑ Singer, Peter. Practical ethics Cambridge University Press (1993), 2nd revised ed., ISBN   0-521-43971-X
  7. ↑ Singer, Peter (2001). "An Interview". Writings on an Ethical Life. Fourth Estate. pp. 319–329. ISBN   978-1841155500.
  8. ↑ "Abolish the death penalty". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 30 August 2010. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
  9. ↑ "117 countries vote for a global moratorium on executions". World Coalition Against the Death Penalty. 19 December 2014. Archived from the original on 2015-04-02.
  10. ↑ "moratorium on the death penalty". United Nations. 15 November 2007. Archived from the original on 27 January 2011. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 "International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-28.
  12. ↑ "IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center". www.theiacp.org. Archived from the original on 2017-09-11. Retrieved 2017-09-11.
  13. ↑ Alpert & Smith. "How Reasonable Is the Reasonable Man: Police and Excessive Force". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 85 (2): 487.
  14. ↑ "Michael Brown's Shooting and Its Immediate Aftermath in Ferguson". N.Y. TIMES. August 25, 2014.
  15. ↑ Richard Rosenfeld, Founders Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
  16. ↑ Rosenfeld, Richard. "Ferguson and Police Use of Deadly Force". Missouri Law Review: 1087.
  17. ↑ Alison V. Hall, University of Texas-Arlington, Erika V. Hall, Emory University, Jamie L. Perry, Cornell University.
  18. ↑ Hall, Hall & Perry (2016). "Black and Blue: Exploring Racial Bias and Law Enforcement Killings of Unarmed Black Male Civilians". American Psychologist. 71 (3, 2016): 175–186. doi:10.1037/a0040109. hdl: 1813/71445 . PMID   27042881.
  19. ↑ Gabrielson, Sagara & Jones (October 10, 2014). "Deadly Force in Black and White: A ProPublica analysis of killings by police shows outsize risk for young black males". ProPublica.
  20. ↑ Attorney George Coppolo, Chief Attorney for the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research.
  21. ↑ Coppolo, George. "Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement Officers". OLR Research Report, Feb. 1, 2008.
  22. ↑ Singer, Peter (2015). Animal Liberation. Bodley Head. pp. 49–53. ISBN   978-1-84792-384-4.
  23. ↑ Animals and Ethics – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  24. ↑ Regan, Tom "An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights", Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22, 1979, 189–219
  25. ↑ Pluhar, E. Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals, Durham: Duke University Press, 1995
  26. ↑ Horta, Oscar. "The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap", Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31, 2014, 142-154.
  27. ↑ Justin Weinberg (2021-11-01). "What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey". Daily Nous. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  28. ↑ 1999, Jennifer M. Scherer, Rita James Simon, Euthanasia and the Right to Die: A Comparative View, Page 27
  29. ↑ "CNN's 2016 Hero of the Year fights euthanasia of children in Colombia".
  30. ↑ 1998, Roswitha Fischer, Lexical Change in Present-day English, page 126
  31. ↑ Kyrsanova, Maryna (June 2020). "The right to euthanasia in the context of the right to life guaranteed by the European Convention of human rights". Law and innovations. pp. 105–110.
  32. ↑ Marušić, Juraj (1992). Sumpetarski kartular i poljička seljačka republika (1st ed.). Split, Croatia: Književni Krug Split. p. 129. ISBN   978-86-7397-076-9.
  33. ↑ Pontifical Council for the Family. The Family and Human Rights Archived 2008-03-19 at the Wayback Machine Vatican website. Retrieved 2011-07-09.
  34. ↑ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
  35. ↑ Catalina Georgeta (2023-05-19). "Does the Right to Life include the Right to Die?}". SERIES VII - SOCIAL SCIENCES AND LAW. pp. 19–24.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.