EUTHANASIA IN NIGERIA- (MY RIGHT TO DIE)
INTRODUCTION:
Diane Pretty was refused the legal right to choose the circumstances of her death. She suffers from motor neuron disease and is experiencing the disintegration of her body. She faces a death that she believes will entail indignity and suffering and physically cannot kill herself. The court has denied her request that her husband be allowed to help her.
The question is; suppose that Mrs. Pretty became permanently and severely incompetent as a result of brain damage and that her life was being sustained by medical technology. If her doctors believed that medical treatment could provide no benefit because of her inability ever to engage in any self-directed activity, then can they legally withdraw life-sustaining treatments, including hydration and nutrition?[1]
Euthanasia also known as "Mercy killing" is one of the most debated topics of this century. While some agree that euthanasia has a place in our existence as humans, others vehemently refuse to accept the fact that the act of euthanasia can ever be right before the law and before man. While some others still haven't even heard of Euthanasia as a crime.
Some have asserted that Euthanasia is against the word and will of God and disrespects the sanctity of life while others believe that there are still reasons to commit Euthanasia.
"Euthanasia", like other life and death concerns such as abortion, triggers human thoughts, emotions, and legal, moral/ethical, and religious upheaval regardless of how it is used. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal and criminalized, according to the prevalent legal framework around the world.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to analyze the meaning and types of Euthanasia, the morality of Euthanasia, what different countries say about this act, the position of Nigerian law on this issue, arguments in support and against this act, and of course, the proper legal measures to be taken.
WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?
The word euthanasia originated in Greece and it means a good death[2]
The Oxford Companion of Law defines the term ‘euthanasia’ to mean ‘the causing or hastening of death, particularly of an incurable or terminally ill patient, and at their request’[3].
It goes on to outline the accompanying legal norm that governs euthanasia and distinguishes it from other legal phenomena, stating:
‘Generally, it (euthanasia) is treated as illegal and not distinguishable murder, largely because of the difficulty of distinguishing in legal rule and in fact between criminal and justifiable causing of death. A narrowly distinguishable case is of refraining from seeking to prolong life in cases of great pain or inevitable death, which is generally considered morally and legally permissible.'
Encyclopedia Britannica defines euthanasia as, “the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from a painful or incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures’’[4].
Chamber 21st Century Dictionary defines euthanasia as ‘an act or practice of ending the life of a person who is suffering from an incurable and often painful or distressing illness’[5].
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Euthanasia, ‘is the act or practice of causing or hastening the death of a person who suffers from an incurable or terminal disease or condition especially a painful one, for the reason of mercy’.[6]
Bamgbose views euthanasia as the taking of human life by another or with the assistance of another.[7] From the above, it is evident that Euthanasia requires an intervention by the person wishing to die or by a person acting on her behalf to hasten a wanted death.
A detailed review of the aforementioned definitions reveals that the practice involves three parties: the dying patient, the dying patient's family, the physician, and/or the doctor who will carry out the act. The concept of euthanasia would not apply to someone who passes away gently and painlessly after a happy life.[8]
FORMS OF EUTHANASIA
This act of euthanasia comes in various forms, which include:
1. Active Euthanasia
2. Passive Euthanasia
3. Voluntary Euthanasia
4. Involuntary Euthanasia
5. Non-voluntary Euthanasia
6. Physician Assisted Suicide.
1. ACTIVE EUTHANASIA:
In this form of euthanasia, there's specific action on the physician’s part in ending life. Here, the physician is the instigator of the death. Lethal medicine could be used.[9]
2. PASSIVE EUTHANASIA:
This is concerned with the non-treatment of terminal conditions.[10] Here, the doctor does nothing. For example, when a doctor merely stops treating a cancer patient, the cancer is the cause of death, as opposed to active euthanasia, which involves a doctor giving a cancer patient a lethal injection.[11] Passive euthanasia occurs "if the cause of death is present within one's body, but is not resisted when there is a moral obligation to do so"[12]
3. VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA:
This method of euthanasia is carried out with the agreement of the patient. In other words, the dying patient consents to the act of mercy-killing.
4. INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA:
This form of euthanasia occurs in a situation where the patient chooses life but is killed regardless. This form is commonly regarded as murder, however, in some situations, the killing could be justified as being in the best interest of the individual who is killed.
5. NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA:
In non-voluntary euthanasia, the patient is unable to offer informed consent.[13]
Non-voluntary euthanasia happens when a person is asleep or otherwise unable to make a meaningful choice between living and dying (for example, a very small newborn or a person with severely low intelligence), and an acceptable person makes the decision on their behalf.
It also includes situations in which the person is a minor who is cognitively and emotionally capable of making the decision but is not legally considered old enough to do so, so someone else must make the decision on their behalf.
6. PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE(PAD):
This form must be distinguished from Euthanasia. In this case, a doctor supports a patient in dying.
As opposed to euthanasia where the doctor is the perpetrator, in this situation, the doctor is merely an accessory. Thus, the doctor does not cause death, it is the patient who causes his/her death.
In practice, a doctor accomplishes this by providing a person with the knowledge, means, or both, necessary to commit suicide, such as advising about lethal medicines, prescribing such fatal doses or giving the pills but he does not kill the patient directly.
THE MORAL STATUS OF EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia represents one of the oldest issues in medical ethics. It is forbidden in the original Hippocratic Oath and has consistently been opposed by most religious traditions since antiquity – other than, incidentally, abortion, which has only been formally banned by the Catholic Church since the middle of the 19th century.[14]
Because this issue is highly controversial, it has taken a turn morally in the mindset of many individuals as well as societies. And since morality is perceived subjectively, it is difficult to align these moral views on Euthanasia. However, below are some of the moral views on the issue of Euthanasia.
Persons involved in the euthanasia debate are often concerned about the role of religion.
For many Christians, at the center of such a discussion on the nature of human life and meaning is the question of the sanctity of human life. For the believer, God is the origin of all life and the sustainer of all life. For that reason, human life has a dignity greater than the sum of life's parts. In a sense, this dignity is not intrinsic to the human person. Human dignity is not conferred by one's actions, by the judgments of others, or by the fiat of law. Rather, it is conferred by God. Intimately associated with the concept of sanctity is an awareness that, because the origin of life is in God, human beings do not have dominion over life but are the stewards of life, which is a gift from another.
Religiously, euthanasia is understood "as an action or omission which of itself or by intention causes death so that all suffering may in this way be eliminated"[15]
Within the theological tradition, no moral distinction is made between active and passive euthanasia. Both are described as causing the death of a person who is ill when there is a moral obligation to prolong that person's life. There is the assumption that there is a moral obligation to preserve and protect human life.
Religious people don't argue that we can't kill ourselves, or get others to do it. They know that we can do it because God has given us free will. They argue that it would be wrong for us to do so. They believe that every human being is the creation of God and that this imposes certain limits on us. Our lives are not only our lives for us to do with as we see fit. To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us, is to deny God, and to deny God's rights over our lives and his right to choose the length of our lives and the way our lives end.[16]
Some also sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see a positive value in suffering. Down through the centuries and generations, it has been seen that in suffering there is concealed a particular power that draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special grace. Several Eastern religions believe that we live many lives and that the quality of each life is set by the way we lived our previous lives. Those who believe this think that suffering is part of the moral force of the universe and that by cutting it short a person interferes with their progress toward ultimate liberation.[17]
Ethically, It has been argued that Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life and that accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others.
Some people believe that dying is just one of the tests that God sets for human beings and that the way we react to it shows the sort of person we are, and how deep our faith and trust in God is. Others, while acknowledging that a loving God doesn't set his creations such a horrible test, say that the process of dying is the ultimate opportunity for human beings to develop their souls.
Assumptions that Harvard's Arthur J. Dyck has identified in what he considers to be the underlying presuppositions of an ethic of euthanasia are as follows:
• That an individual's life belongs to the individual to dispose of entirely as he or she wishes and that the dignity that attaches to personhood because of the freedom to make moral choices demands also the freedom to take one's life;
• That there is such a thing as a life not worth living, whether because of distress, illness, physical or mental handicaps, or even sheer despair for whatever reason;
• That what is sacred or supreme in value is the "human dignity" that resides in man's rational capacity to choose and control life and death.[18]
HOW VARIOUS COUNTRIES PERCEIVE EUTHANASIA
Since it is obvious that religious and moral claims do not make an action legal or illegal in a country, it is only pertinent to observe the Euthanasia laws in different countries and Nigeria.
Some forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Colombia, Japan, Canada, the US jurisdictions of Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Montana, Washington DC, and California, as well as Victoria in Australia.[19]
In the year 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide simultaneously. Belgium's year of implementation was 2002 as well, however, unlike the Netherlands, it just authorized euthanasia.
It seems legislators are starting to respond to the needs of terminally ill patients. Importantly, the legalized use of voluntary euthanasia in these jurisdictions is not out of control as has been claimed by those opposing voluntary euthanasia.
Just like every other country that has permitted one or both notions, the Netherlands, which has legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide, has imposed considerable limits on the practice. They include:
1. The request must be made in writing.
2. The physician must hold the conviction that the request by the patient is voluntary and considered carefully
3. The physician must hold the conviction that the patient’s suffering is lasting and unbearable and that there is no possible hope for improvement.
4. The physician must consult at least one other independent physician, who examines the patient and confirms in writing that the attending physician met the criteria with due care.
5. The physician terminates the patient’s life or assists the patient in ending their life must be present.
6. The physician must report the death to the coroner.[20]
In Switzerland, Swiss laws allow euthanasia, as long as the recipient gives consent and participates in administering the drug or substance which will lead to their death (Almagor, 2004). This law was passed in 1942 and allows for euthanasia except in circumstances where the recipient does not give consent or in cases where the motives for committing euthanasia are selfish. Swiss laws also prohibit active euthanasia.[21]
Belgium, which decriminalized euthanasia in 2002, has its own set of rules which include:
1. That the patient is of the age of majority(for an emancipated minor) and capable and conscious at the time the request is made
2. That the illness is serious and incurable
3. That the patient is in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical/mental suffering that cannot be alleviated.
4. That the patient’s request must be in writing.
5. Advance directive is only valid if it is drafted or confirmed no more than five years before the patient’s loss of the ability to express his/her wishes.[22]
The state of Oregon where assisted suicide was legalized in the year 1997, has the following conditions:
1. That the patient must be a capable adult who is suffering from a terminal disease.
2. That the patient’s life expectancy is less than six months.
3. That the patient is a resident of the state of Oregon.
4. That the patient must make an oral request and a written request and reiterate the oral request
5. Less than 15 days shall elapse between the patient’s initial oral request and second oral request.
6. That the patient must self-administer the medication without assistance, but a physician may be present.[23]
In 2009, the state of Washington allowed assisted suicide, however, the criteria are similar to those in the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
Luxembourg also in the year 2009 decriminalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide.[24]. However, it is with the following conditions:
1. That the patient is of legal age of majority and capable and conscious at the time of the request.
2. That the request is voluntary, considered carefully, and repeated, as warranted: not the result of any external pressure.
3. That the request to resort to euthanasia or assisted suicide is made in writing.
4. That the patient is in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a disorder caused by illness or accident.
5. Advance decision is taken into account; it may be held, reiterated, canceled, or adapted at any time. It is recorded in an official system, and the government authority must ask the person to confirm it every five years.
WHAT THE NIGERIAN LAW SAY ABOUT EUTHANASIA- THE RIGHT TO DIE
It is true that people's culture influences their thoughts about euthanasia and assisted suicide. As a result, other countries perspectives on dying with dignity diverge greatly from African cultures, particularly in Nigeria, where it is regarded as suicide, a severe taboo. Nigeria, being a typical African country steeped in traditional law, prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide, as suicide and the deliberate killing of the sick are considered taboo and abominations.[25]
Unlike in areas like Oregon, however, assisted suicide is viewed as dying with dignity, Nigerians according to custom and practice are among the people who find death to be the least dignified. They believe in the sacredness of life.
The provisions of Chapter 1V of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, underscore a person's right to life.
"Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offense of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria."[26]
Sub-section 2 goes further to list exceptions to the right to life and it is to be noted that the act of Euthanasia was not mentioned.
(2)A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary -
(a) for the defense of any person from unlawful violence or for the defense of property:
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or
(c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.
The Nigerian Constitution however makes provision for a person's right to dignity.[27] This brings about the controversy of whether the act of Euthanasia goes hand in hand with protecting a person's right to dignity or it contradicts a person's right to life.
Under the Criminal Code Act[28], which is applicable in the southern part of Nigeria, consent to die is immaterial. The approval of a person to an act causing death is not a defense under this act. The killing of a human being by another is a crime under homicide.[29] In respect of assisted dying/suicide, the Criminal Code Act provides that:
‘any person who aids another in killing himself is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life.’ The reasoning here is that a person's consent to the cause of his death has no bearing on the criminal liability of the one who causes it.[30]
In State v. Okezie[31], the accused, a native doctor, prepared some charms for the deceased. The deceased then invited the accused to test the charm on him by firing a shot at him. The accused shot him in the chest and killed him. He was convicted of murder[32].
The Criminal Code Act also prohibits the act of Active or Voluntary Euthanasia as it provides that:
“Any person who attempts to kill himself is guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable to imprisonment for one year.”[33]
Under the Penal Code Act[34] which is applicable in Northern Nigeria, consent of a person to an act causing death is no defense. The penal laws make no distinction between a homicide committed with the assistance of a physician, a request from a patient, or the patient's health status. The effect is that euthanasia is murder.[35]
Sections 220 and 221 of the Penal Code Act provide that any form of killing, except as stated under the Nigeria Law(which doesn’t include euthanasia) attracts the death penalty under Nigerian Law.
It is therefore clear that the statutory laws prohibit the act of Mercy killing (Euthanasia). However, under judicial precedents, it seems the court has something else going on.
Euthanasia cannot be discussed under judicial precedents in Nigeria without mentioning the case of Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. John Nicholas Okonkwo[36]
This case exemplifies the inconsistency between court rulings and Nigerian legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Supreme Court recognized the primacy of a patient's right to agree to medical intervention or treatment in that instance. As a result, if evidence shows that the patient was a mature, competent adult, the constitutional right to privacy includes the ability of such a patient treatment that could prolong his life. Even though refusal may result in death. The Court held thus:
“the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion implies a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification, from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious belief.”
The court also declared that a physician can lawfully remove any sort of treatment from a patient who has consented to die on religious grounds by refusing a transfusion. By this very judgment, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has expressly or by implication approved passive euthanasia in Nigeria, according to a thorough reading of this judgment.
Regardless, since the Constitution made it clear that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions therein, shall be void to the extent of its inconsistency[37], it can be said that the Nigerian Constitution's right to life overrules this judgment. However, it remains a debate among legal practitioners.
Under customary law, Euthanasia and assisted suicide are strongly prohibited in most Nigerian societies' traditional law. This is evident in some communities, where the body of a deceased person who died by any of these methods is customarily buried in the "evil forest," and everyone who took part in the procedure is excommunicated. Following that, a lengthy process of atonement and cleansing of the community or land takes place.
Consequently, in Nigeria, it is possible to say that euthanasia and assisted suicide is unlawful. This illegal status is due to current laws that do not provide for euthanasia and assisted suicide in Nigerian statutes.
WHY EUTHANASIA SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED OR NOT UNDER THE NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM.
As have being observed from the foregoing, Euthanasia is a crime under Nigerian law as it is labeled Murder when it is assisted and homicide when it is self-administered. The question now is, is it enough to ban Euthanasia just because it infringes on a person's right to life? What happens when a person's right to dignity has been infringed upon by not letting him choose to die instead of suffering pain?
Just like other controversial topics like Abortion, everything that has a bad side also has its good cause. We will, therefore, analyze the arguments for and against euthanasia.
It has been argued that the decriminalization of Euthanasia reduces the quality of life. Since only the patient knows what it's like to endure intractable pain (continuous, unrelenting pain despite pain medications). They believe that determining one's quality of life is ultimately a personal matter and that people have the right to choose when and how they will die if their circumstances are unendurable. As an act of compassion and human solidarity, they believe it is acceptable to end the suffering of a person whose agony persists at the person's request.
It has also been argued for the legalization of Euthanasia that if the law provides for the dignity of a person, it covers both living with dignity and also dying with dignity. Most people who are dying, even those opposed to euthanasia, would want to die with dignity and not go through severe pain. Euthanasia uses the most humane and painless method of causing death and allows recipients to die with dignity. Therefore, an individual can decide to die with dignity and choose Euthanasia.
But if Euthanasia is to be legalized in Nigeria, there are so many effects it would bring on the nation.
Firstly, it should be noted that since euthanasia is mostly conducted by medical practitioners, it violates historically accepted codes of medical ethics. Traditional medical ethical codes have never sanctioned euthanasia, even on request for compassionate motives. The Hippocratic Oath states 'I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel....' In its 1992 Statement of Marbella, the World Medical Association[38] confirmed that assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. When a doctor intentionally and deliberately enables an individual to end his life, the doctor acts unethically.
Secondly, Euthanasia's legalization in Nigeria would lead to so many cases of abuse.
Sometimes, requests for voluntary euthanasia are rarely free and voluntary. A patient with a terminal illness is vulnerable. He lacks the knowledge and skills to alleviate his symptoms, and may well be suffering from fear about the future and anxiety about the effect his illness is having on others. It is very difficult for him to be entirely objective about his situation.[39] Thus, their decision-making may equally be affected by confusion, dementia, or troublesome symptoms which could be relieved with appropriate treatment. Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers, and a society that is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'.[40]
It has often been noted that unscrupulous relatives, in attempting to rid themselves of a terminally ill parent or relative, will apply pressure on the terminally ill person to seek euthanasia. And also to gain their inheritance.
Thirdly, If euthanasia is legalized we can expect advances in ktenology (the science of killing) at the expense of treatment and symptom control. This will in turn encourage further calls for euthanasia.[41]
And even if laws were to be enacted to legalize this act, can there be an ironclad guarantee that the legislation, if enacted, won’t be abused? As with any similar legislation, such guarantees are impossible to make. Legislation prohibiting murder does not guarantee a society free of murder.
If being a burden were a concern that would drive terminally ill people to seek legalized euthanasia, then many people should be considering legalized suicide now because, according to some measures, they could be considered a burden.[42] Everyone who obtains some benefit from others, whether it is people who are being cared for, children, elderly, unemployed, pensioners, etc., is theoretically a burden on other people or society. But we do not find pensioners, or even children opting to die.
Again, the legalization of Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life. Euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to the killing of people who are thought to be undesirable in society. All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status, or potential for achievement.[43] It may even get to a point where Doctors may soon start killing people without bothering with their permission.
Even though human beings should be free to make decisions about their own lives, which includes the time and manner of their death. They are not free to do things that limit or violate the reasonable freedoms of others. No man is an island. No person decides to end his or her life in isolation. Others are affected: friends and relatives left behind, and the healthcare staff involved in the decision-making process.
Finally, If Euthanasia is legalized, it is likely to increase the suicide rate in the country. Our society aims to reduce the suicide rate. Deciding to legalize Euthanasia will only go as far as giving ground for a suicide case to be defended as Euthanasia.
LEGAL MEASURES TO BE TAKEN ON EUTHANASIA
As has been observed above, Euthanasia has some good causes. But does this good cause make it worth being legalized above all its bad sides?
The answer to this is not to change the law, but rather to improve our standards of care.
Accordingly, Instead of the legalization of Euthanasia, Proper palliative care could be ensured and followed. Palliative care is physical, emotional, and spiritual care for a dying person when a cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person from feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia.[44]
In other words, it only points to the patient that they matter to the last moment of their life and you will do all you can to help them die peacefully, but also to live until you die. The key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of symptoms, or medical problems.
There are numerous cases of AIDS and cancer patients who have been abandoned by their parents, brothers, and sisters and by their lovers. In a state of total isolation, cut off from every source of life and affection, they would see death as the only liberation open to them. And they would seek Euthanasia. In those circumstances, subtle pressure could bring people to request immediate, rapid, painless death, when what they want is close and powerful support and love.
Indeed, they'll probably die soon, but what if they don't?
Even If their death is a 99.9% surety of happening, it is only fair to stay by them to the end. In that way, the patient does on their own and no one has a murder case at hand.
However, if need be, then these Euthanasia laws could be enacted to cover extreme cases. The truth is that euthanasia will always continue to take place, even if it’s illegal. But if laws are put in place, then the process can be controlled, including proper safeguards and checks to ensure this is really what the person wants. And since Nigerian law does not specifically prohibit Euthanasia, it is recommended that the judicial and legislative branches collectively produce a comprehensive reform of existing laws aimed at giving exceptions to deserving cases for the exercise of a right to die by Euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Just like conditions and exceptions are guiding these laws in the different countries where Euthanasia is legalized, The Nigeria legislature could adopt some exceptions like adulthood, critical terminal, incurable illnesses, and so on.
Finally, better education for Healthcare providers and the Public should be provided. If the public fully comprehends the concept of euthanasia, as well as how to complete advance directives and the benefits of doing so, the legitimacy of enforcing euthanasia in deserving cases will be recognized, and its abuse would be reduced.
CONCLUSION:
This article has analyzed the meaning and types of Euthanasia, the morality of Euthanasia, what different countries' legislation says about this act, the position of Nigerian law on this issue, arguments in support and against this act, and of course, the proper legal measures to be taken.
From the above research, it has been noted that although forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Colombia, Japan, Canada, the US jurisdictions of Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Montana, Washington DC, and California, as well as Victoria in Australia, Nigeria does not permit the act of Euthanasia as it labels it murder and homicide.
And even though there have been arguments for the legalization of Euthanasia in Nigeria, I opine that Palliative Care should not be ignored as it goes a long way toward stopping Euthanasia and should be adopted instead of the full-time legalization of Euthanasia.
Finally, the truth is that euthanasia will always continue to take place, even if it’s illegal, therefore certain laws should be put in place to permit exceptional cases of Euthanasia. If laws are put in place, then the process can be controlled, including proper safeguards and checks to ensure this is really what the person wants.
And since Nigerian law does not specifically prohibit Euthanasia, it is recommended that the judicial and legislative branches collectively produce a comprehensive reform of existing laws aimed at giving exceptions to deserving cases for the exercise of a right to die by Euthanasia and assisted suicide.
REFERENCES
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121585/
[2] Lewy G. Assisted suicide in US and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2011.
[3] David M. Walker, The Oxford Comparison of Law (Oxford Press, 1980) p.441.
[4] <https://www.britannica.com/search?query=Euthanasia+> accessed 12th October 2021.
[5] Chamber 21st Century Dictionary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); See also T. Norchaya, Euthanasia: A Malaysian Perspective (Asia: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) p. 7
[6] Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Ed. (Texas; LawProse Inc., 2009), 634.
[7] O. Bamgbose, “Euthanasia: Another Face of Murder” vol. 48 No.1, (2004) International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, pp.111 – 121
[8] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legalization-right-dieeuthanasia-taboo-nigeria-priscillia-agboroh-1e
[9] Ibid.
[10] Roger Leng, Death and the Criminal Law (1982) 45 MLR 206.
[11] See J. Rachel, “Active and Passive Euthanasia” vol.292 No.19 (1975) New England Journal of Medicine pp.1911-1914. 2424 ‘Oregon’s Death With Dignity Law and Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Factual Disputes”
[12](Kevin O'Rourke, "Assisted Suicide: An Evaluation," Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol. 6, 1991, p.21
[13] Bright E. Oniha, “Legality of Euthanasia and the Right to Die in Nigeria” available on <https://edojudiciary.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/LEGALITY-OF-EUTHANASIA-AND-THE-RIGHT-TO-DIE-IN-NIGERIA-BY-BRIGHT-E.-ONIHA-CORRECTED.pdf> accessed on 12th October, 2021.
[14] https://theconversation.com/we-have-a-right-to-die-with-dignity-the-medical-profession-has-a-duty-to-assist-67574
[15] (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration on Euthanasia," Origins, vol. 10, 1980, pp. 154-157).
[16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
[17] supra.
[18] Arthur J. Dyck, "An Alternative to the Ethics of Euthanasia," as cited in Richard M. Gula, What Are They Saying about Euthanasia? Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1986, p. 169. These reflections are deeply indebted to Fr. Gula's masterful analysis of this important subject.
[19] https://www.ethicalrights.com/euthanasia/a-refutation-of-arguments-against-euthanasia
[20] Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act, s.p. [Official translation of the Dutch Act, effective as of April 1, 2002]. <http://www.kuleuven.be/ep/viewpic.php?
[21] https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/undergoing-euthanasia-in-switzerland-medical-law-essay.php
[22] Loi relative à l’euthanasie, effective as of May 28, 2002. <http://www.ulb.ac.be/cal/ Documents/Documentsdereferences/loieuthanasie_28052002.pdf.> accessed 12th October 2021.
[23] Oregon Death with Dignity Act, effective as of October 27, 1997. <http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml.> accessed 12th October 2021.
[24] Loi du 16 mars 2009 sur l’euthanasie et l’assistance au suicide, effective as of March 16, 2009. <http://www.unifr.ch/ddp1/derechopenal/legislacion/l_20090402_01.pdf.> accessed 12th October 2021.
[25] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/legalization-right-dieeuthanasia-taboo-nigeria-priscillia-agboroh-1e
[26] Section 33(1) of CFRN, 1999
[27] Section 34(1) of CFRN, 1999
[28] CAP.C38, LFN. 2004.
[29] Section 229 of the Criminal Code Act
[30] Section 326(3) of the Criminal code Act
[31] (1972),2 E.C.S.L.R. 419
[32] <https://www.ajol.info/index.php/naujilj/article/view/136296> accessed 12th October 2021.
[33] Section 327 of the Criminal Code Act
[34] Cap.P3 LFN, 2004.
[35] C.O. Okonkwo, “Medical Negligence and the Legal Implication” in B. C. Umerah(ed.), Medical Practice and the Law in Nigeria. (Lagos: Longman, 1989) pp.119 – 120.
[36] [2001] FWLR (pt. 44) 542.
[37] Section 1(3) of the CFRN 1999
[38] Handbook of Declarations, WMA, 1992, France
[39] https://www.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia/twelve-reasons-euthanasia-1997/
[40] https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
[41] https://www.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia/twelve-reasons-euthanasia-1997/
[42] https://www.ethicalrights.com/euthanasia/a-refutation-of-arguments-against-euthanasia
[43] https://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-against-euthanasia/#.Y993pFIo-DY
[44] https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
AUTHOR
OGO GLADYS AMARACHI
MAROON INK
Comments