Mercy killing in Nigeria (Euthanasia)

Mercy killing in Nigeria (Euthanasia)

By Isah Abdulwaheed

• Introduction

Anthony David Bland, an 18-year-old Liverpool supporter, journeyed with two friends to Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough football ground for an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on April 15, 1989. Tragically, a collapse of the stadium due to poor crowd control by the police and overcrowding led to the deaths of 94 people that day, with 95 more victims hospitalized in the days following. Among them, Bland suffered crushed ribs and two punctured lungs, which, in turn, disrupted the oxygen supply to his brain, resulting in irreversible damage that left him in a persistent vegetative state. Though devoid of sensory perception, his brain stem, responsible for reflexive bodily functions such as heartbeat, breathing, and digestion, continued to operate. Medical consensus maintained that while Bland remained biologically alive, he would never recover from his vegetative state.

The medical team overseeing Bland, in consultation with his parents, concluded that prolonging his medical care served no meaningful purpose. Consequently, they determined it appropriate to cease artificial feeding and other life-sustaining measures. Although unanimous in their prognosis that Bland would never emerge from his vegetative state, legal ambiguity persisted regarding the cessation of treatment. In November 1992, the Court ruled that doctors could withdraw treatment at the family’s behest in cases where recovery was deemed impossible. As such, on March 3, 1993, Bland, aged 22, was permitted to pass away peacefully, a decision often referred to as “mercy killing.”

The fundamental question arises: Have you ever witnessed a loved one succumb to an incurable illness, languishing in hopeless suffering, prompting a wish for their peaceful release from agony?

Horace once proclaimed, “to save a man’s life against his will is the same as killing him.”

Euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing,” stands as a contentious issue, eliciting robust arguments from both sides of the ethical divide. Advocates maintain that enabling terminally ill individuals to end their lives with dignity constitutes an act of compassion, while opponents argue vehemently against the moral and legal implications of such actions.

• What is Euthanasia?

Etymologically derived from the Greek “euthanatos,” meaning “easy or happy death,” euthanasia embodies the concept of a peaceful end. For clarity, “Eu” connotes “easy or happy,” while “Thanatos” signifies “death.”

In pronunciation, euthanasia sounds akin to YOUTH-IN-ASIA.

Defined by the Black Law Dictionary as the act or practice of expediting the death of individuals suffering from incurable or terminal diseases, especially those causing immense pain, euthanasia finds its roots in notions of mercy¹.

The Oxford Dictionary characterizes euthanasia as the deliberate painless killing of individuals afflicted with incurable ailments.

Bamgbose further delineates euthanasia as the deliberate taking of human life, either directly or with assistance.

• Types of Euthanasia
  • Voluntary Euthanasia:

In this form of euthanasia, a patient explicitly requests a doctor to terminate their life. The patient possesses the requisite understanding of their decision and its ramifications, demonstrating maturity, sanity, and competence. Often, the patient may have conveyed their consent through an advance directive before becoming incapacitated or unconscious.

Countries such as Australia, Canada, Colombia, Belgium, Spain, New Zealand, Luxembourg, and Switzerland have legalized voluntary euthanasia.

• Involuntary Euthanasia:

Contrary to voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia entails the termination of a patient’s life without their explicit consent. This action is typically not due to the patient’s incapacity or unconsciousness but rather based on the doctor’s belief that it is in the patient’s best interest. In most legal jurisdictions, involuntary euthanasia is vehemently opposed and regarded as a criminal offense.

• Non-Voluntary Euthanasia:

Under non-voluntary euthanasia, the patient’s life is ended with the consent of their relative or guardian. This occurs when the patient is unable to provide consent due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. An illustrative scenario is that of a newborn baby suffering from an incurable disease, where the parents may authorize the termination of the baby’s life.

• Passive Euthanasia:

This variant of euthanasia involves the deliberate cessation of a patient’s life by a doctor, solely for the patient’s benefit. It entails actions such as the deliberate cessation of respirators, discontinuation of medications, and withholding[1] of[2] food and water to allow the patient to dehydrate or starve to death. Passive euthanasia is also known colloquially as “pulling the plug.”

• Euthanasia from a Religious Perspective

In Nigeria, a nation deeply rooted in customs and traditions, the sanctity of life is revered as a sacred gift bestowed by the divine. Consequently, euthanasia is viewed as a taboo, conflicting starkly with the prevailing norms of Nigerian society. This reverence for life finds expression in the adage of the Igbo people, encapsulated in the phrase “Nkponkpo Ndu Ka Onwu mma,” emphasizing that even the most precarious state of health is preferable to death.

Both Islam and Christianity, the predominant religions in Nigeria, unequivocally denounce euthanasia. Christianity opposes euthanasia primarily due to its contravention of the sixth commandment, “Thou shall not kill”². Furthermore, the Bible warns against the act of murder, stressing accountability before God for such actions[3].

Similarly, Islam categorically prohibits the taking of a life, including one’s own, or aiding in the taking of another’s life. Muslims believe that life is bestowed by Allah for a divine purpose and should not be terminated prematurely. Quranic verses emphasize the sanctity of human life and the severity of punishment for its unlawful termination[4]. Islamic teachings underscore the gravity of any involvement in the taking of a believer’s life, even in the slightest manner.

These tenets from the Quran and the Bible underscore the sanctity of human life, the prohibition of unjustified killing, and the imperative to preserve life in accordance with divine will. Consequently, euthanasia, as a means to alleviate suffering, stands in direct contradiction to the principles espoused in these sacred texts, affirming the reverence for life upheld by both Christianity and Islam.

• Euthanasia and the Law

Unfortunately, Nigeria’s legislative framework has yet to enact specific legislation addressing euthanasia directly. However, both the penal code, applicable in the northern regions, and the criminal code, applied in the southern areas, contain provisions relevant to euthanasia.

Under Section 306 of the Criminal Code, the unlawful killing of a human being is expressly prohibited. This implies that any act of killing, regardless of the consent of the deceased, is deemed illegal if not authorized by law.

Furthermore, Section 326(3) of the Criminal Code Act stipulates that aiding another in taking their own life constitutes a felony punishable by life imprisonment.

Additionally, Section 311 indirectly touches on euthanasia by deeming any act or omission hastening the death of a person suffering from a disorder or disease arising from another cause as tantamount to killing that individual.

Similarly, Section 230 of the penal code outlines penalties for acts that, if resulting in death, would constitute culpable homicide not punishable by death. Other relevant sections include 222, 227, and 249 of the penal code.

In summary, Nigerian law unequivocally prohibits euthanasia.

However, arguments in favour of euthanasia in Nigeria may cite constitutional provisions such as Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. When read alongside Sections 34 and 35(1) of the same Constitution, which affirm rights to dignity and personal liberty, one may argue that terminally ill patients have fundamental rights that should not be disregarded solely on the basis of their guaranteed right to life. The right to life, it may be contended, does not entail enduring a state of perpetual and incurable suffering.

In the case of MDPDT v. OKONKWO[5], A patient, Mrs. Martha Okonkwo, and her husband, being members of the Jehovah’s Witness, gave birth to a baby. She subsequently refused life-saving blood transfusions after complications arose. She was later re-admitted in the hospital of the respondent, himself also a Jehovah’s Witness, who managed the patient without life-saving blood transfusion until she eventually died. Dr. Okonkwo was found culpable of professional negligence and suspended for 6 months by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. After his successful appeal, the tribunal appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ayola JSC (as he then was) stated as follows:

The patient’s constitutional right to object to medical treatment or particularly, as in this case, to blood transfusion on religious grounds is founded on fundamental rights protected by the 1979 constitution as follows: (1) Right to privacy: Section 34, (ii) right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion, section 35. All of these are preserved in section 37 and 38 of the 1999 Constitution respectively. The right to privacy implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience or religious beliefs’ and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion and one’s body from unauthorized invasion. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion implies a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification from choosing the course of one’s life…. if a competent adult patient exercising his right to reject lifesaving treatment on religious grounds thereby chooses a path that may ultimately lead to his death, in the absence of judicial intervention overriding the patient’s decision, what meaningful option is the practitioner left with other than perhaps to give the patient’s comfort. More so against the back drop of the fact that prevailing medical ethical practice does not without exceptional demand that all efforts towards life prolongation be made in all circumstance, but seems to recognize that  the dying are often in need of comfort than treatment.

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case simply means that a person suffering from an incurable disease has the right to object to medical treatment; this includes the right to refuse treatment that may prolong his life, even though that refusal may seem stupid, unwise, or foolish to others. Any attempt to keep the patient alive against his choice, in a state of misery and disgrace, infringes on the patient’s constitutional rights to liberty and dignity.

• Conclusion

From the decision of the apex Court in MDPDT V. OKONKWO[6], one could argue that not all types of euthanasia are prohibited in Nigeria. This is correct because the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia in Okonkwo’s case. As a result, the Nigerian government, most significantly the judiciary and legislative branches, should address this controversy. As circumstances are, it is challenging to say whether or not all forms of euthanasia is unlawful in Nigeria. In view of this, it is my humble suggestion that the Supreme Court should either reconsider its ruling in Okonkwo’s case, which contradicts the provisions of section (311) of the criminal code and section (230) of the penal code, or that the legislature enact a law that will clarify the legality or illegality of euthanasia in Nigeria.

References

1.Dr. S.I Salihu (2018) AN ANALYSIS ON THE LEGALITY OF EUTHANASIA IN NIGERIA: REFORMING THE LAW.

2.<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legalization-right-dieeuthanasia-taboo-nigeria-priscillia-agboroh-1e> Accessed on 14 April,2024.

3.<<https://www.britannica.com/search?query=Euthanasia+> Accessed on 24 April, 2024

4. <<https://sabilaw.org/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/>> Accessed on 3rd May 2024.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Isah Abdulwaheed is an undergraduate student of 300l Faculty of Law, Bayero University Kano. He is an enthusiastic researcher and legal writer. He admits that his article is not foolproof and therefore, he takes full responsibility for the gaps or omission you may observe.

He can also be reached via: isahabdulwaheed534@gmail.com and 08166270263 for correction.