AN APPRAISAL OF THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA UNDER NIGERIAN LAW

BY

MALEEK RACHEAL OMETEREOYIZA

LAW/2015/180

A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF LAW IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF
LAWS (LLB) DEGREE OF THE OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE
NIGERIA

MARCH, 2022.

1
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this Long Essay, “AN APPRAISAL OF THE CONCEPT OF
EUTHANASIA UNDER THE NIGERIA LAW” was written by MALEEK RACHEAL
OMETEREOYIZA (LAW/2015/180) of the Faculty of Law Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-
Ife, under my supervision.

………………………………… ………………………………

Supervisor Date

Dr. O.O Olusegun

Faculty of Law

i
 DEDICATION
This project work is dedicated to God Almighty my creator, my strong pillar, my source of
inspiration, wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

ii
 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
“So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy”-

Romans 9 v 16.

Most importantly my profound gratitude and appreciation goes to the almighty God for his

mercies, guidance, provisions and protection, all through my academic sojourn on this great

campus.

I also acknowledge that this essay would not have been a reality without the invaluable

assistance of my supervisor, Dr. O. O Olusegun. I am most grateful for her diligent scrutiny and

corrections which culminated in the success of this essay. I also appreciate the double honour of

being taught and supervised by her. May God in His infinite mercy recompense her.

My invaluable gratitude also goes to my loving and caring parents, Mr G.A Maleek and Mrs C.

O. Maleek. I appreciate their untiring efforts, prayers, encouragement, goodwill, financial and

moral support, and to my graceful and loving younger siblings; Godwin A. Maleek, Jeremiah D.

Maleek and Emmanuel S. Maleek , who are the embodiment of love, care, support, discipline

and great inspiration to me.

My heartfelt appreciation goes to my guardians, Professor E A. Agbakwuru and Mrs M.O

Agbakwuru for their unending love and support. Also, to Maxmillian Agbakwuru, who has also

been of great support to me.

With a deep sense of gratitude, I also thank my spiritual parents and mentors; my pastor, Rev.

Professor Gregory Erhabor, my pastor Rev. (Mrs) Ayodele Erhabor. Also my leaders, Dr Deola,

Mr Muyiwa Akinade, Mr Olufemi Oloka, and Dr. Paul Akpomuje for their love, care, guidance,

iii
discipline, corrections and inspirations instilled in me during my undergraduate sojourn. Also I

want to appreciate all members of the Television Unit Sanctuary of Hope Church.

Mention must also be made to my beloved friends who have been of invaluable moral and

academic assistance, in this regards are; Odeyemi Jesuye Esther, Babalola Aanuoluwapo,

Akinsete Shileola, Onyenuwe Ezinne, Akinloye Bolutife, Ayoola Ifeoluwa, Okoro Stephanie,

Shonibare Tomisin, Ubah Ezinne, Adegbite Mariam, Agboola Fawziyyah, Akinrinade Olabisi,

Amani Mariam, Akintola Ayooluwa and Amowogbaje Catherine.

iv
 TABLE CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION............................................................................................................................i
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS..............................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................vii
Cases..........................................................................................................................................vii
Statutes......................................................................................................................................vii
Rules.........................................................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................ix
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY......................................................................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.....................................................................................3
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH...................................................................................5
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................6
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY......................................................................................6
THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA.............................................................................................8
2.1 MEANING OF EUTHANASIA............................................................................................8
2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EUTHANASIA.......................................................11
2.3 TYPES OF EUTHANASIA................................................................................................14
2.3.1 Voluntary Euthanasia....................................................................................................14
2.3.2 Non-voluntary Euthanasia............................................................................................16
2.3.3 Involuntary Euthanasia.................................................................................................17
2.4 REASONS FOR EUTHANASIA....................................................................................21
RELIGIOUS, MORAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN EUTHANASIA........................................23
3.1 EUTHANASIA AND RELIGION......................................................................................23
3.1.1 Christianity Viewpoint..................................................................................................25
3.1.2 Islamic Viewpoint.........................................................................................................31
3.2 EUTHANASIA AND MORALITY....................................................................................34
3.2.1 Euthanasia and Moral Murder......................................................................................38
3.2.2 Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life..............................................................................41
3.2.3 Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope...............................................................................45
3.3 ETHICAL ISSUES ON EUTHANASIA............................................................................48
3.3.1 Purpose of Medical Care..............................................................................................49

v
 3.3.2 Naturalist Issue on Euthanasia......................................................................................51
3.3.3 Role of the Court..........................................................................................................51
3.3.4 Deciding what Constitute Best Interest........................................................................52
4.1 LEGAL STATUS IN SOME WESTERN JURISDICTIONS.............................................55
4.1.1 Euthanasia in the United States....................................................................................56
4.1.2 Euthanasia in Netherlands............................................................................................62
4.1.3 Euthanasia in Belgium..................................................................................................64
4.1.4 Euthanasia in Switzerland.............................................................................................65
4.2 LEGAL STATUS IN NIGERIA.........................................................................................67
4.2.1 The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria..........................................67
4.2.2 Criminal and Penal Code..............................................................................................73
4.2.3 Code of Medical Ethics................................................................................................77
4.2.4 Judicial Response..........................................................................................................78
4.2.5 A Proposed Draft Bill...................................................................................................80
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION..........................................................................89
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................89
5.2 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................93
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................96
BOOKS......................................................................................................................................96
JOURNAL ARTICLES.............................................................................................................98
ONLINE SOURCES...............................................................................................................101

vi
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Airdale NHS v. Bland 3 WLR 316 at 350.....................................................................................62

Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 ANLLR 400 (HC)..............................................................................62

Area Health Board v. A.G (1993) 1 NZLR 235, (1993) 4 Med LR 239......................................63

ArunaShanbaug v Union of India (2011) 4 SSC 454....................................................................27

Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015, 6 February 2015......................................................77

Frenchary Health Care NHS Trust v S..........................................................................................63

John Okonkwo’s case....................................................................................................................90

Karen Ann Quinlan case [1976] 355 A 2d 647.............................................................................67

Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. John Nicholas Okonkwo(2001) FWLR

(pt. 44) 542.....................................................................................................................................22

N.H.S v. Bland...............................................................................................................................26

R v Cox (1992) 12 BMLR 38........................................................................................................29

R v. Chima (1944) 10 W.A.C.A 223.............................................................................................22

R v. Nwaoke (1939) 5 W.A.C.A 120............................................................................................86

Royall v R, (1991) 100 ALR 669 at 678.......................................................................................48

Washington v. Gluckberg [1997] 521 U.S 702.............................................................................67

Statutes

Article 114 of the Swiss Criminal Code........................................................................................76

Article 293 of the Dutch Penal Code.............................................................................................73

Belgian Act on Euthanasia, 2002...................................................................................................75

Death with Dignity Act............................................................................................................12, 18

Section 306 of the Criminal Code.................................................................................................62

vii
Section 322 of the Criminal Code Act...........................................................................................11

Section 326 of the Criminal Code 2004........................................................................................13

Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria......................................10

Section 7 of Thailand’s the National Health Act of 2007.............................................................12

State v Okezi 2 ESCLR 419..........................................................................................................85

Texas Futile Care Law of 1999.....................................................................................................12

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria...........................................................78

The California End of Life Act......................................................................................................72

Rules

Rule 68 of the Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria.........................................................................13

viii
 ABSTRACT

This study critically examined the concept of euthanasia, alongside its classifications and debates

surrounding it. It examined the position of Nigeria and some other western jurisdiction on

euthanasia, through certain legal frameworks. Certain municipal and international laws were also

examined, in order to identify their position on euthanasia. The study further gave a proposed bill

as a recommendation on the legalization of euthanasia in Nigeria, drawing from countries which

have legalized euthanasia.

The study relied on primary and secondary source of information. Some of the primary source

included the 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Nigerian Criminal Code,

the Nigerian Penal Code, Code of Medical Ethics and judicial decisions. The secondary source

included journals, articles, textbooks, periodicals and information from the internet.

The study found that the practice of euthanasia was illegal in Nigeria. It also found that the

prohibition was against the Fundamental Human Rights. It also found that there were provisions

under international laws which provided for the practice of euthanasia. It also found that some

countries had already legalized euthanasia. It also drafted a bill on euthanasia

The study concluded by recommending the legalization of euthanasia in Nigeria. The study

further recommended that the National Assembly should pass a law which would regulate how

euthanasia should be carried out. Also, the study recommended that that there should be a

reformation of the health sector and make healthcare affordable and accessible to all.

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

One of the most valuable gifts given to us by God is the gift of life. 1 The gift of life is meant to

be respected by the citizens and the government in general. The government seeks to ensure that

everyone enjoys this gift by trying to protect citizens against any external attack.2

Murder and homicide which is seen as an attack on the right to life is not taken with levity and

severe punishment is assigned to the criminal by the State. 3. There are instances where a person’s

life is ended at their request in order to relieve them of suffering. For example, voluntary

euthanasia.

As a result, the position on voluntary euthanasia involves assisted suicide; while some countries

view assisted suicide as an individual's right to take his or her own life, others, particularly

Nigeria, do not allow for assisted suicide. Taking one's own life is considered a criminal offense

in Nigeria.4

Over time, it has been observed that severe punishment has not been melted out to anyone who

was on the verge of attempting suicide but rescued.

Euthanasia is one of the most controversial areas of law, with various countries adopting their

own policies. Some countries do not legalize euthanasia, such as Nigeria, where it is strictly

1
The Holy Bible, Deuteronomy 32:39, Job1:21.
2
Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chapter C 23, Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria.
3
Collins Okeke, Ginka Ikechuchukwu and Ayotomiwa Adebanjo, ‘The Offences of Murder, Culpable Homicide and
Attempt to Murder in Nigeria’ (Mondaq, 6 August 2021) <https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/crime/1099056/the-
offences-of-murder-culpable-homicide-and-attempt-to-murder-in-nigeria> Accessed 6 August 2021.
4
Section 322 of the Criminal Code Act, Chapter C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

1
prohibited. It has been described as non-existent in the traditional Nigeria setup. 5 The only form

of historical euthanasia can be traced to non-voluntary killing practiced in Nigeria which were

involved in the tribal wars.6 An example was the killing of infants during wars in order to avoid

being exposed while running to escape being caught by their enemy.7

Also, non-voluntary killing of twins in the south- eastern part of Nigeria were regarded as a

taboo and abomination and it became a practice that twins were killed and thrown to the evil

forest.8 The missionaries and foreign humanitarians like Mary Sellessor fought against it and the

practice was criminalized as infanticide by the Nigerian government. 9 Non- voluntary suicide

was practiced in the Oyo kingdom before colonialism, where the Aare Ona Kakanfo, who is

usually in charge of war, was required and compelled to commit suicide if and when he loses a

war10. Therefore, it can be said that the beliefs and practices of the ancient Nigeria traditional

cultures, especially in the ethnics groups such as Edo, Yoruba, Ebira, Igbo, and Fulani is relevant

to the issues in euthanasia.11

Several opinions have been made in order to support the legalization of euthanasia whereby it is

seen as a violation to prevent a person’s or patients human right to life, self-dignity and

autonomy. It has been argued that it serves as a means to bringing extreme pain to an end,

prevent drain resources, especially people with terminal illness. Also, it is seen as giving an

alternative to a painful death, shortens the grief, emotional torture and traumatic experience of
5
John A. Onimhawo, ‘Euthanasia: A Philosophical –Theological Evaluation of the Traditional Nigerian
Experience’[1996] 28 Ibadan Journal Of Religious Studies 106.
6
Obi M.C, ‘A Critical Appraisal of Euthanasia under Nigerians Laws’ [2014] 4 Nnamdi Azikwe University Journal
of International Law and Jurisprudence 75.
7
Adaramola F., Basic Jurisprudence (3rd edn, Nigeria: Raymond Kunz Communications 2004) 68.
8
Obi M.C. ‘A Critical Appraisal of Euthanasia under Nigerian Law’ [2014] 4 Nnamdi Azikwe University Journal of
International Law and Jurisprudence 75.
9
Ibid.
10
Abdul Habeeb A., A.O Sambo and A.B Abdulkadir, ‘The Right To Die Via Euthanasia: An Expository Study Of
The Shari’ah And Laws In Selected Jurisdictions’ [2012] 6 Advances In Natural Sciences 673.
11
John A. Onimhawo, ‘Euthanasia: A philosophical-Theological Evaluation of The Traditional Nigerian
Experience’ [1996] 28 Ibadan Journal Of Religious Studies 106.

2
the patients loved one. Legalization of medically assisted suicide and euthanasia includes the

Texas Futile Care Law of 1999, Section 7 of Thailand’s the National Health Act of 2007, and

Death with Dignity Act.12

Euthanasia or mercy killing is a very late entrant in the legislative debate, which has caught the

attention of Jurists and scholars have, they however could not pierce the legislative boundaries

until very lately.13 The connection between right to life and right to die has been attempted in

legal debates. It is widely accepted that murder is a crime under Nigerian law 14, and euthanasia is

also prohibited. The concept of euthanasia has come increasingly under the spotlight due to the

on-going advancement of medicine which includes the perception and understanding of death.

This long essay looks into the definition and classification of euthanasia, historical evolution of

the concept in Nigeria, ethical issues in euthanasia, the legal status of the practice in Nigeria and

a proposed draft bill.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In Nigeria, the advancement of euthanasia in the Administration of Criminal Justice System is a

snail pace compared to other jurisdictions. According to Section 326 of the Criminal Code 2004,

and the provision of Rule 68 of the Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria, the position of Nigeria on

euthanasia is that it is totally prohibited unlike other countries such as Belgium, Canada,

Colombia, Luxembourg, amongst others which have legalized the practice of Euthanasia in their

society.

12
Codified as RCW 70.245 passed on Nov.4, 2008 and went in effect on March 5, 2009.
John B. Mitchell, “My Father, John Locke, and Assisted Suicide: The Real Constitutional Right’’ [2006] 3 Indiana
13

Health Law Review 45.

14

3
Human rights have become a cornerstone of modern medicine. In response, European countries

have legalized both physicians assisted suicide and active euthanasia and the US states of Oregon

and Washington have passed legislation regulating euthanasia. It would be of great effect,

drawing from the experience of these countries, to examine how such proposals will affect

Nigeria in legalizing euthanasia.

In 2004, the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria were respectively enacted and reviewed. It is well

known that the society is always changing as such the laws of a society must follow the

evolvement of such society. According to Justice Bhagwati;

If the law fails to respond to the needs of changing society, then

either it will stifle the growth of the society and chock its
progress or if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the
law which stands in the way of its growth. Law must therefore
contently be on the move adapting itself to the fast changing
society and not behind.15

Therefore, in as much as the society changes and evolves, the laws should be reformed to suit the

emerging needs of the society. Currently, the legalization of euthanasia has risen based on the

person’s right of self-autonomy and right of dignity amongst others. This has created a need for

government to examine the current laws on euthanasia and ensure the laws are not breaching the

right of such person.

Existing scholars have discussed the concept of euthanasia. This research shall add to knowledge

in that it addresses euthanasia from a legal and moral perspective while comparing the position

of the law in different jurisdictions. While previous research works have addressed euthanasia

15
Lawrence M. Friedman, ‘Legal Culture and Social Development’ [2010] 1 Law & Society Review 29.

4
from these perspectives, none has addressed euthanasia from these perspectives jointly in a

single research.

The major problem which this research seeks to address is the legality of euthanasia in Nigeria.

The research seeks to examine the propriety of criminalizing euthanasia in Nigeria. The research

shall also look into the problem of equating euthanasia with murder and the problem of using the

right to life as a barricade from permitting euthanasia. The research shall also address the legality

of euthanasia in other countries and compare them to the position of law in Nigeria. This

research shall also examine the moral issues involved in euthanasia and shall argue that

euthanasia should be legal.

The research shall examine the available literature on the subject-matter and shall take a side as it

concerns the arguments they have rendered. The research shall add to knowledge in that it will

examine the issue from various perspectives such as religious, legal and moral perspective.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

The aim of this study is to give an appraisal of the concept of euthanasia under the Nigerian law.

The specific objectives are to;

a. discuss the concept of euthanasia

b. examine the religious, moral and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia

c. discuss the legal status of euthanasia in Nigeria and other western jurisdiction

d. propose a bill on euthanasia.

5
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study will rely on primary and secondary source of information. The primary source

comprises of statutes like the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), as well as

regulations, policies, and judicial decisions such as the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act etc.

The secondary source includes books, journals articles and information from the internet. Data

obtained will be subjected to content analysis.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The research work focuses on the general appraisal of euthanasia under the Nigerian law. This

study is significant as it examines the concept of euthanasia, the arguments surrounding this

concept and the legal status of euthanasia in Nigeria. It further examines the religious, moral and

ethical issues in euthanasia and makes recommendations on the need for the legalization of

euthanasia in Nigeria, alongside with a proposed draft bill on euthanasia in Nigeria. Also,

examines the legal status in some western jurisdiction. This would thereby serve as an addition to

the body of knowledge concerning this aspect of law.

This research is significant in that it examines a novel issue and provides arguments as to why

euthanasia should be legal. It makes attempts to convince various stakeholders such as legislators

among others as to why euthanasia should be legal. The research is also significant in that it

seeks to convince an average person to have a positive view about euthanasia. Furthermore, the

research is significant as it seeks to convince doctors and medical practitioners to accept

euthanasia and to change the widespread opinion that euthanasia is murder.

6
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY

This essay consists of five chapters, each having its own independent objective. Chapter one

discusses the general introduction, the significance of the study, aims and objectives and research

methodology of the work.

Chapter two examines, the concept of euthanasia by discussing the meaning, historical

background, types, and reasons for euthanasia, and the debate surrounding the early attempt to

legalize euthanasia.

Chapter three embodies the religious, moral and ethical issues in euthanasia.

Chapter four discusses the regulation of euthanasia under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, the Penal and Criminal Code, the Code of Medical Ethics, euthanasia in

relation to judicial response, the legal status in some western jurisdiction and a propose draft bill

on euthanasia.

Chapter five provides recommendations as well as concludes this research work.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA

2.1 MEANING OF EUTHANASIA

Walker defines the term ‘euthanasia’ to mean ‘the causing or hastening of death, particularly of

the incurable or terminally ill patient, and at their request’ 1 It goes further to describe the

attendant legal rule governing euthanasia and to distinguish it from similar legal phenomena,

stating:

Generally, it (euthanasia) is treated as illegal and not

distinguishable from 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 the prolong life in cases great pain or
inevitable death, which is generally considered morally and
legally permissible.
According to Oxford dictionary defines euthanasia as the painless killing of a person suffering

from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. 2 Also it defines euthanasia as

“bringing about a merciful and painless death for persons suffering from incurable and painful

disease.”3 The Merriam-Webster dictionary has defined euthanasia as a practice of killing

someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. 4 Health has been

defined by the World Health Organization as not mere absence diseases and illness, but a state of

complete mental, physical and social well-being.5 In respect to the concept of euthanasia,

terminal illness can be defined as one which has no cure and ultimately will lead to death.

1
David M. Walker, The Oxford Comparison of Law (Oxford Press,1980) 44.
2
Oxford Dictionary, <https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/euthanasia> Accessed 23
January 2022.
3
A. S.Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (7th edn, New York: Oxford University
Press,1997) p.500.
4
Merriam-Webster dictionary, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia> (Merriam-Webster
dictionary) Accessed 17 January 2022.
5
World Health Organization , “Health and Well-being” <https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/major-themes/health-
and-well-being> Accessed 12 March 2022.

8
Furthermore, Euthanasia is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English

Language6 as the “the action of killing an individual for reasons considered to be merciful.” The

Canadian Law Reforms Report7 explained it as “the act of ending the life of a person from

compassionate motives, when he is already terminally ill or, when his suffering has become

unbearable”.

The Oregon’s Death with dignity Act, 1997, a person is qualified to be euthanized when he or

she is terminally ill and, in the opinion of a physician, he or she has only six or less than six

months to live.8 Also in Netherlands where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized, both

concept are defined as a situation where an individual experiences intolerable pain or suffering

(even if such a person is not terminally ill), such that the illness is irreversible9

Furthermore, etymologically, the word euthanasia is a derivative of two Greek words ‘eu’ and

‘thanatos. Eu which means’ good cheer’ ‘courage’ or ‘cheerful’ and thanos which means

‘death’.10 Also, some scholars are of the view that euthanasia is the intentional premature

termination of another person’s life which could either be active euthanasia or passive 11

euthanasia, either at the express or implied request of that person known as voluntary euthanasia

or in the absence of such approval known as non-voluntary euthanasia. Therefore, euthanasia is

defined as the act of killing an incurable ill person out of concern of compassion for that person’s

suffering. It is sometimes called mercy killing, but many advocates of euthanasia define mercy

6
Emeka C Ekeke & Ephraim A. Ikegbu, ‘The Sanctity of Human Life in The Twenty First Century: The Challenge
of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide’ [2010] 1 International Research Journal 312.
7
Canadian Law reforms, (CBC Radio-Canada) <www.cbc.ca/on eutha.htm> Accessed 25 February 2022.
8
‘Robin Lunge, Maria Royle & Michael Slate, ‘’Oregon’s Death With Dignity Law and Euthanasia in the
Netherlands: Factual Disputes’ (Legislative Council, 2004) <http://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?
session=29&docid=7207> Accessed 17 February 2022.
9
Ibid.
10
R.I Adebayo, ‘Euthanasia in The Light of Islamic Law and Ethics’ [2008] 11 Nigeria Associations of Arabic and
Islamic Studies 1.
11
Suresh Bada Math & Santosh K. Chaturvedi, ‘’Euthanasia: Right to life vs Right to Die’’ [2012] 136 Indian
Journal of Medical Research 899.

9
killing more precisely as the endings of another’s life without his or her request. 12 In the same

light, it can be inferred from the above definition that the practice of euthanasia involves three

parties, namely, the dying patient, the family of the dying patient, and the physician or doctor

who carries out the action. The dying patient may voluntarily request a physician to terminate his

life. It is important to state that the concept of euthanasia would not be applicable to a person

who sleeps away peacefully and painlessly without any intervention after a fulfilled life.

Euthanasia requires an intervention from the person wishing to die or by a person acting on his

or her behalf to hasten unwanted death.13

Also, it can be inferred from the definitions that euthanasia is an act which is initiated or

requested by a person who is in such a state that chances of him suffering while alive are so more

that he would prefer to die, or a person who would consider suicide as ending his pain, normally

would think of euthanasia.

2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EUTHANASIA

The traces of euthanasia can be found in the Greeks and Romans tradition. In the ancient Greek

euthanasia was not hastening of death and was considered a painless death by consuming

hemlock.14 In other words, in ancient Greece and Rome helping others die or putting them to
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Robert Orfalli, Death with dignity: The case for Legalizing Physician Assisted Dying and Euthanasia, (Published
2022, Mill City Press, Inc.).

10
death was considered permissible in some situations. For example, Sparta n newborns with

severe birth defects were put to death. Also, voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an

approved custom in several ancient societies.15

The first use of the word ‘euthanasia’ was used by the Roman historian Suetonius in his De Vita

Caesarum-Divus Augustus to describe the death of Augustus Caeser, labeling his death to be ‘a

euthanasia’ his death was not hastened by any other person. 16 Also, suicide was not sanctioned

by the Athenians law even to release oneself from pain and sufferings, yet suicide by means of

consuming poison provided by physicians was a common occurrence17.

However, the practice of euthanasia can be said to be denuded of any history in Nigeria. What

may be considered to be something similar to non- voluntary euthanasia was practiced by the

beleaguered Nupe in the present Niger state. This practice of non-voluntary euthanasia was not

limited to them alone; it also extended to all other ethics groups who were involved in inter and

intra tribal wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.18 The nature of this non-voluntary euthanasia was

the killing of infants. These infants were usually exposed by their parents as a way of running for

cover to avoid being caught by the enemies. Considering the fact that lots of things happened

during wars, the children usually cry endlessly, largely due to illness and hunger. These cries

may attract the enemies to know the hiding place of their allies. So as a way of avoiding being

caught, they will abandon the children. This is because the wailings of the babies could attract

the enemies to know their place. Therefore, to avoid being caught by enemies, babies would be

15
Ibid.
16
“A General History of Euthanasia’’, (24Grammata) <https://24grammata.com/a-general-history-of-euthanasia/>
Accessed 23 January 2022.
17
Euthanasia Conference, ‘’Attitude Towards Euthanasia in Ancient Times and Today’’ (3rd Conference of the
Euthanasia Educational Council, 17 January 1970).
18
Mike Chekwube, ‘’A critical Appraisal of Euthanasia under Nigerian Laws’’ [2014] NAUJILJ 75.

11
abandoned while they too scurry too hide. Thus, after being bitten by rain, sunshine, infections

and most importantly hunger, many of them died19

What may be viewed as the present-day euthanasia can also be related to the old practices in the

present southeastern part of the country, wherein the custom and tradition of the people permits

killing of twins. It was seen as abomination for a woman to give birth to two set of children at a

blow. The custom made it compulsory for parents of such baby twins to kill them immediately or

sooner after their birth, and throw them at the evil forest. 20 However, what should call to our

mind is the manner such infants were killed. It could be noted that some parents had the mind or

morale to physically kill those children by either strangling them to death or stopping their

breath. Some who could not have such mind looked for certain herbal concoction which they

either prepared themselves, or obtained from an herbalist and administer such poisonous locally-

made substance orally to the newly born twins, which would incidentally lead to their death.21

It could be noted that it is obligatory upon parents of such infants to kill them, because giving

birth to twin is considered a taboo then, and any parents or family that refused to perform the

killing would either ex-communicated or banished from the village. It could be gathered that this

practice persisted till late 1940’s when the missionaries and foreign humanitarians such as Mary

Sellessor fought vigorously against it. It took a serious intervention from both the Nigerian

government and foreign humanitarians to stop this practice. But that notwithstanding, the

practice kept on going until it was criminalized as infanticide. Thus, in the case of R v. Chima,22

a woman gave birth to twins and within an hour afterward, she killed them because of a custom

prevalent in her town that it was an abomination to give birth to twins. She was convicted of

19
F. Adaramola, Basic Jurisprudence (3rd edn, Nigeria: Raymond Kunz Communications, 2004) 68.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
(1944) 10 W.A.C.A 223.

12
murder but on appeal, it was held that the conviction, if any, should have been for infanticide,

and not murder.

The history of euthanasia in Nigeria cannot discussed be without mentioning the Supreme Court

decision in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. John Nicholas Okonkwo 23.

In that case, the Supreme Court per Ayoola JSC held among other things that;

If a competent adult patient exercising his right to reject

lifesaving treatment on a religious ground, thereby chooses a
patch 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, perhaps
than to give the patient the comfort?’24
It was also the Supreme Court decision in this case that a patient has a constitutional right to

object to medical treatment on religious grounds. In that decision, the Court held that;

the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion implies

a right not to be prevented, without law 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.25
The court also stated that the physician can lawfully withdraw any form of treatment on a patient

who by refusal of blood transfusion consented to die on ground of religion. A careful perusal of

this judgment by the apex court in the country shows that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has

expressly or by implication approved passive euthanasia in Nigeria.

Apart from these instances, euthanasia and or assisted suicide have no place in Nigeria because

like every typical African customary law, suicide and deliberate killing of the one who is ill is a

taboo and an abomination in the country.26

23
(2001) FWLR (pt. 44) 542.
24
Supra.
25
Supra
26
M.C. Obi, Op cit, p.11.

13
Euthanasia is illegal in Nigeria. This illegal status is however not as a result of any special

legislation, but as based on existing laws which do not specifically provide for euthanasia and

assisted suicide.27 As it started from the ancient time, across the countries and jurisdictions that

have legalized same till date, debates on same are already on. A school of thought may be of the

opinion that a call for legislation at this stage is premature, since agitation on the issue is yet to

begin.

2.3 TYPES OF EUTHANASIA

There are different types of euthanasia which have been identified by authors and scholars in a

wide range of literatures, journals and books. Amongst the classification include, the voluntary

euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia, active euthanasia and passive

euthanasia. These shall be subsequently discussed.

2.3.1 Voluntary Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia is performed with the full consent of the patient who requests a medical

practitioner to end his or her life.28 In this situation, the patient understands the nature of her

demand and implication. This form of euthanasia is carried out for the benefit of the patients and

such patients must be matured, sane and competent to give such consent29

Voluntary euthanasia was described by LeBaron as a kind of death, which is performed by

another with the consent of the patient, may be in writing as a case of a living will or advance

directive.30 Also there may be two kinds of situations in cases of voluntary euthanasia, the first is

27
Supra
28
Koenane M.L.J, ‘Euthanasia in South Africa: Philosophical and Theological Consideration’ [2017] 38 Verbum Et
Ecclesia 1549.
29
Omipidan B.A, ‘Euthanasia: The 21st Century Culture of Death’ [2011] 7 Nigeria Bar Journal 213.
30
Emeka C. Ekeke (Rev) and Ephraim A. Ikegbu, ‘The Sanctity of Human Life in the Twenty Century and the
Challenge of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide’ [2010] 1 International Research Journals 314.

14
where the person requesting for euthanasia is still in his senses, and is able to communicate his

decision while the second one being where the person is in such a physical or mental state that he

is not able to communicate.

The celebrated case of Dr. Cox in 1992 is an example of voluntary euthanasia; Dr cox openly

defied the law and assented to 70 years old Mrs Boyes persistent request for voluntary active

euthanasia. Mrs Boyes was so ill that she screamed like a dog if anyone touched her,

conventional medicine did not relieve her pain. In her last days, following her repeated request to

die, Dr Cox gave her an injection of potassium chloride leading to her peaceful passage.

Another similar case occurred in France; an 18year old Vincent Humbert acted as a volunteer in

the fire department. He was involved in a road traffic accident and was completed paralyzed.

Nearly all his vital organs were damaged. The only functions which remained intact was the

sense of hearing, the ability to think and the ability to move one thumb. This last ability enabled

him to express his desire to die. One person read the alphabet and when he moved his thumb the

corresponding letter was dotted down. In this way, he dictated a letter to the French president.

Chirac, pleading for the right to die in a dignified manner. The president responded that whilst

he sympathized with his situation, he was unable to do anything because euthanasia is prohibited

in France. Vincent’s mother subsequently took the laws into her own hands and administered an

overdose of sleep reducing drugs into his blood stream. But he did not die but went into deep

coma. The doctors eventually stopped the provision of oxygen and removed the intravenous drip

knowing that it will invariably lead to his death. He passed on soon thereafter.31

Oniha B.E., ‘Legality of Euthanasia and the Right to Die in Nigeria’ (Edo Judiciary)
31

<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 17 January 2022.

15
2.3.2 Non-voluntary Euthanasia

Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient cannot make a decision or cannot make their

wishes known, in other words, it occurs where the patient is completely unable to give consent.

The decision of premature and merciful death is made by another who is related to the patient,

because the patient does not have the ability to give consent or make the decisions themselves.

Non-voluntary euthanasia is mostly used in cases where the person is in coma, an infant,

mentally retarded, severe brain damaged32.

The house of Lords presents a typical instance of this form of euthanasia in the decided case of

Airedale N.H.S v. Bland. In the case, Anthony Bland, a 17-year-old, was one of the Liverpool

football club supporters crushed in the Hillsborough football club tragedy of 15 th April 1989. In

the course of this, his lungs were crushed and punctured. Supply to his brain was interrupted. As

a result, he suffered catastrophic and irreversible damage to his brain. For 3 years he was in a

persistent vegetative state {PVS). He remained in this state for over two years with no sign of

improvement, whilst being kept alive by life support machines, Bland could breathe by himself

but required feeding through a tube and received full care. The doctors that were treating Bland

granted approval to remove of the tube that was feeding him. This decision was appealed to the

House of Lords by the Solicitor acting on Bland’s behalf. The court held that the doctors have a

duty to act in the best interests of their patients but this does not necessarily require them to

prolong life. On the basis that there was no potential for improvement, the treatment Bland was

receiving was deemed not to be in his best interests. It is not lawful to cause or accelerate death.

However, in this instance, it was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment which in this

32
Mark Dimmock & Andrew Fisher, Euthanasia, Ethics for A level (Part 3, Open Book Publishers 2017) 124.

16
instance was the food that Bland was being fed through a tube. The appeal was however

dismissed. 33

Also, in the Indian case of ArunaShanbaug v Union of India34 who was in a vegetative state also

falls under this head.

2.3.3 Involuntary Euthanasia

The term “involuntary euthanasia” is used to describe the killing of a person who has not

explicitly requested aid in dying. It is most often used with respect to patients who are in

persistent vegetative state and who probably will never recover consciousness35.

According to Robin, involuntary euthanasia is intentionally administering medications or other

interventions to cause a patient’s death when the patient was competent but without patient’s

explicit request and or full informed consent. Also, any euthanasia conducted against the will of

patient is regarded as an involuntary euthanasia. 36 Such patient is competent but not consulted

and arguably his/her life is ended against their will.

Involuntary euthanasia was described by LeBaron37 as “death performed by another without the

consent of the person being killed”. Also, according to Uduiwomen 38, in involuntary euthanasia,

the one who is to die does not take the decision of his death, as the decision may be taken by his

family, his friends or the physician himself. arguing in favor of involuntary euthanasia, it was

stated that where the patient suffers from a brain damage or illness and there is no hope of

33
‘Airedale NHS Trust v Bland’ (Lawteacher, January 2022) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/airdale-nhs-trust-v-
bland.php?vref=1accessed>Accessed 19 January 2022.
34
(2011) 4 SSC 454.
35
B.A Omipidan, Op cit, pp.3.4.
36
Dharmendar K. Nehra, Pradeep Kumar & Sheetel Nehra, ‘Suicide: Attitude and Prevention’ in Amrita Yadava &
NovRattan Sharma (eds), Euthanasia: An Understanding (Global Vision Publishing House 2013) 61.
37
LeBaron G Jr.. “The Ethics of Euthanasia” Quantonics, (1993-318 Educ. Res.2008).
38
Uduiguwomen F. Andrew, ‘Çontemporary Issues and Problems in Biomedical Ethics’ [2003] Calabar: Vision
Connection.

17
recovery, it may be necessary that the decision is made by another person on his behalf.

However, it has been argued that the use of involuntary euthanasia should not be permissible as

no one has a right to interfere with another’s will in taking his life without his permission.

According to researches, the majority of those who are victims of involuntary euthanasia are

mostly infants or babies born with deformities by physicians in conjunction with the parents of

such babies39

The above listed types of euthanasia can either you carried out actively or passively which are as

follows:

a) Active Euthanasia

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, active euthanasia is performed by a facilitator (such as a

health care practitioner) who not only provides the means of death but also carries out the final

death causing act.40 It entails the taking of specific steps to cause the death of another such as

injecting the patient with a lethal injection or medication. In practice this may be undertaken by

the use of an overdose of painkillers or sleeping medication.41

Also, active euthanasia refers to the direct causing of death of a terminally ill person upon his

request. This involves a situation where a medical practitioner through lethal injection hastens

the death of the patient. It is active because, the action of the medical practitioner is what led to

the death of the patient. This is opposed to passive euthanasia.

39
Ibid.
40
Bryan. A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th ed. (Texas; LawProse Inc., 2009),634.
41
V.B Lious-Jacques, Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate in Kure(ed), The “Good Death” Controversy in
Humans and Animal (Croatia: Intech,2011) 63.

18
 Active euthanasia as described by L Robin 42, is causing of death of a person through a direct

action, in response to a request by that person. To Glifford, passive euthanasia “involves

allowing a patient to die by removing (him) from artificial life support system such as respirators

and feeding tubes or simply discontinuing medical treatment necessary to sustain life” 43 This

type of euthanasia is centered around the doctor directly influencing the death of a patient, that

is, he does something to directly brings about the patient death44

Active euthanasia is a reoccurring decimal in Nigeria’s medical practice, although there are no

official accounts of its occurrence. A typical and more recent example of active euthanasia is the

injection of overdose of morphine by Dr. Conard Murray, the personal physician to late pop star

Micheal Jackson, which caused Cardiac Arrest that ultimately led to his death. The 1998 action

of Dr. Jack Kevorkian in Michigan leading to the death of Thomas Youk, a 52-year old Michigan

man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, is another classic example of Active Euthanasia. The law

in most of the nation’s considers it to be murder as there is an act from an outside agent which

takes away the life. In R v Cox45, an old lady suffering from incurable arthritis asked Doctor cox

to end her life, who in response to her request administered potassium chloride resulting in her

death. The doctor was charged for attempted murder and not murder because it could not prove

that the potassium chloride only took away her life as the corpse had been disposed without any

autopsy not clearly showing the reasons of the death. The court reasoned that the intention of the

doctor was clearly to end the life of the patient and his motive of helping the woman is

immaterial. Moreover, there was a lack of evidences to prove that the condition of the lady was

42
Robin L., Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law and Euthanasia in Netherlands: Factual Disputes (Montepelier
Publishing 2004) 3.
43
Glliford E, ‘ArtresMoriendi: ‘Active Euthanasia and the Act of Dying’ [1993] 40 UCLA Law Review 1545.
44
V.B Lious- Jackques, ‘’Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate’’ in Kure (ed), The Good Death, Controversy in
Humans and Animal (Intech, 2011) 65.
45
(1992) 12 BMLR 38.

19
such that she would have anyway died of the disease. Thus, under active euthanasia, death arises

as a result of an act, either by switching off a life support machine, or administering an overdose

painkiller.

b) Passive Euthanasia

Passive euthanasia as the name implies requires act that aren’t directly the cause of death. It is

the ending of the life omitting to act. It has been summed up by Arthur Clough as “Though shall

not kill but need not strive officiously to keep alive”. 46 Also, passive euthanasia is brought

merely by omission, which is, withdrawing or failing to carry out treatment needed for sustaining

of parent’s life. Thus, it is allowing a person to die through a natural cause of death, even though

there are methods available to keep the person alive. Passive euthanasia also includes giving a

patient large though of morphine to control pain, in spite of the likelihood that the painkiller will

suppress respiration and cause death earlier than it otherwise would have happened. Such doses

of painkillers have a dual effect of relieving pain and hastening death. Administering such

medication is regarded as ethical in most political jurisdictions and by most medical societies.

The procedures are performed on terminally ill suffering persons so that natural death will occur

sooner. They are also commonly performed on persons in a persistent vegetative state, for

example, individuals with massive brain damage or in a coma form who likely may not regain

consciousness47

46
“Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide’’ (The BBC) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/> Accessed 17
January 2022.
47
V.B Lious-Jacques, ‘’Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate’ in Kure (ed), The “Good Death” Controversy in
Humans and Animal (Intech, 2011) 65.

20
2.4 REASONS FOR EUTHANASIA

According to the qualitative study of patients’ experiences in Canada which indicated the

autonomy and quality of life were the most important reasons for a request for euthanasia. 48 The

reasons for requesting euthanasia by patients includes loss of autonomy, loss of ability to do

enjoyable or meaningful activities, disease-related symptoms and the fear of prolonged

suffering.49

It would be considered inhumane and unfair to make not only patients but families go through

the emotional pains caused by terminal illness. The emotional pain is usually too much to bear,

thereby patients resulting to euthanasia.

Apart from the pains, the patient also thinks he or she is a burden to the family, relatives or loved

ones. It would be unfair for the family and patient if they have to sacrifice a lot in taking care of

the patient who may eventually die.

Most times the patient usually feels useless. In other words, the patient feels worthless, which

often involves a sense of hopelessness and insignificance as a result of the vegetative condition

or the bad condition of health.

Another important reason why patients choose euthanasia is as a result of the financial

inadequacy on the part of the patient and due to the cost of treatment. Also, patient result to

euthanasia due to the fact that most patient are usually afraid of a very painful death, in other

words the fear the excruciating pain and suffering for example patients dying of cancer and other

terminal illnesses.0

48
Nuhun A and others. Experiences and Perspectives of People who Pursued Medical Assistance in Dying. In
qualitative study in Vancouver, BC. Can Fam Physician. 2018; 64: e380-6.
49
Ibid.
0
Ibid.

21
 CHAPTER THREE

RELIGIOUS, MORAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN EUTHANASIA

The debates over euthanasia began in ancient times, with Hippocrates, Thomas Acquinas,

Socrates, and Plato. Furthermore, there are numerous compelling arguments both for and against

euthanasia. It has remained one of those concepts that elicit strong emotions and opinions from

the general public. As a result, it has been the subject of ongoing debate at all levels of society.

In view of this, debates regarding the religious, moral and ethical issues in euthanasia shall be

examined subsequently.

3.1 EUTHANASIA AND RELIGION

Death is one of the most important things that religions deal with. All faiths offer the meaning

and explanations for death and dying; all faiths try to find a place for death and dying within

human experience0. For those left behind when someone dies religions provide rituals to mark

death, and ceremonies to remember those who have died. Religions provide understanding and

comfort for those who are facing death. Religion regards the understanding of death and dying as

vital to finding meaning in human life. Dying is often seen as an occasion for getting powerful

spiritual insights as well as for preparing for whatever afterlife may be to come. 0 All the faiths

have their strong views on euthanasia. We have different religious views on euthanasia.

We have various religious views on euthanasia. Most religions disapprove of euthanasia. Some

of them absolutely forbid it. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, is one of the most active

organisations in opposing euthanasia. Virtually all religions state that whoever become

vulnerable through illness or disability deserves special care and protection, and that proper end

0
BBC News, “Religion and Euthanasia’’ <https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/religion/religion.shtml>
Accessed 22 January 2022.
0
Ibid.

22
of life care is a much better thing than euthanasia. Religions are opposed to euthanasia for a

number of reasons

Virtually, all religions have a command from their God in their scriptures that says ‘you must not

kill’, this is usually interpreted as meaning ‘you must not kill innocent human beings’, this rules

out euthanasia as well as murder, as carrying out any of these would be against God’s orders, and

would be an attack on the sovereignty of God.

Human life is special. Human beings are made in God’s image, therefore they have a special

value and dignity, this value doesn’t depend on the quality of a particular life, taking a life

violates that special value and dignity even if it is one’s own life and even if that life is full of

pain and suffering.

Some eastern religions take a different approach. The key ideas in their attitudes to death are

achieving freedom from mortal life, and not-harming living beings. Euthanasia clearly conflicts

with the second of these, and it interferes with the first. Hinduism and Buddhism see mortal life

as part of a continuing cycle in which we are born, live, die, and are reborn over and over again.

The ultimate aim of each being is to get free of this cycle, and so be completely liberated from

the material world. During each cycle of life and death human beings make progress towards

their ultimate liberation. How they live and how they die play a vital part in deciding what their

next life will be, and so in shaping their journey to liberation. Shortening life interferes with a

human being’s journey to liberation. 0

3.1.1 Christianity Viewpoint

Christianity is strongly opposed to euthanasia. The religious book of Christians, the Bible, has

many verses that indicate the supremacy of God over life, having sacred values and not
0
Ibid.

23
permitting euthanasia. The bible condemns murder 0, and it includes euthanasia in the definition

of murder only. If some country passes a legislation to legalize euthanasia, then as regards, the

person may become free of any criminal charge, but he would be guilty in relation to the bible, as

bible says that God is to be obeyed and not the men 0. It is also believed that life is a gift from

God, and as such no one has the right to take a life, even if requested for by a person in pain. As

seen in the story of an Amalekite soldier0 who claimed to have killed Saul to prevent him from

dying a shameful death in the hands of the Philistines army. He expected to receive promotion

from David for “mercifully killing” King Saul, instead, David killed him for killing the Lords

anointed0.

According to the Christian beliefs, man is made in the image of God 0 and has a distinct relevance

as each person is spending his life with God. In addition, our bodies are described as sacred and

as combining God’s temple and God’s Holy Spirit. According to the Bible, the writer of

Corinthians said:

Don’t you know that you yourself is God’s temple and

that Gods spirit dwell in your midst? If anyone destroys
God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s
temple is sacred, and you together are the temple0.
These quotes not only reveal the sanctity of our bodies and the cause of that sanctity. Our

creation in the image of God and the presence of God’s spirit within us, they also reveal the

punishment for those who might take life. Linking the sanctity of life view to euthanasia, Mother

Teresa0 states that:

0
The Holy Bible, Exodus 20:13.
0
Ibid, Acts 5:29.
0
The Holy Bible, 2 Samuel 1:1-16.
0
Emeka C. Ekeke (Rev) & Ephraim A. Ikegbu, ‘The Sanctity of Human Life in the Twenth First Century; The
Challenge of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide’ [2010] 1 International Research Journal 312.
0
The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:26.
0
Ibid, 1 Corinthians 3: 16-18.
0
An Albanian- Indian Roman Catholic Nun and missionary, known in the Roman Catholic Church as Saint.

24
 For me, life is the most beautiful gift of God to mankind, therefore people
and nations who destroy life by abortion and euthanasia are the poorest. I
do not say legal or illegal, but I think that no human hand should be raised
to kill life, since life is God’s life in us0

If one chooses euthanasia, then he denies the worth of the life and the argument of quality of life

in favour of euthanasia is not compatible with the Christian religious beliefs. Christianity

preaches that God is the supreme power, he is sovereign and he has gifted us with life 0 and also

decided the length of life.0. So any attempt to give this life away or shorten its duration as

determined by God is an interference with the divine plan and must be avoided.

However, there are some beliefs that contradict Christianity's general pro-life philosophy and

allow for some euthanasia. These beliefs include respect for individual life; if a person decides to

discontinue a burdensome and futile treatment, he should be allowed to do so and should be

given the opportunity to die with dignity.0

The declaration of Euthanasia issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in

1980 was the first official statement from any Christian religious authority regarding euthanasia.

Therein they condemned euthanasia declaring it to be refusal of God’s plan and love. It was

clearly said that pain in the last moments of life has a special place in the religion which is

equivalent to sharing of the passion of Christ. The pain that one suffers at the time of death

brings him closer to Christ as at that moment he realizes the troubles that Christ had suffered for

humankind and by suffering them humans also become a part of that divine process. 0 In the

0
Chaliha J. & Le Joly E., The Joy in Loving: A Guide to Daily Living (New Delhi: Viking Print, 1996) 174
0
The Holy Bible, Job 33:4.
0
Ibid, Job 14:5.
0
Euthanasia and Assisted Dying” (BBC, 3 August 2009).
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/euthanasia_1.shtml> Accessed January 28,
2022.
0
‘’Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia’’ (The Vatican)
<https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/
rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html> Accessed 28 January 2022.

25
same line, euthanasia was equated to murder and it was said that any merciful intention or

motive behind the act does not change its character and the acts remains murder only.

The Roman Catholic view is almost similar. The church considers euthanasia to be morally

wrong as it is a violation of the law of God and in form of deliberate killing, it is equivalent to

murder.0 It believes that the inherent value of life is to be respected and is independent of the

pain or sufferings it brings. The pleasures and pains that life brings do not diminish its intrinsic

value or diminish its sacredness.0

However, in Christian beliefs, church also allows refusing the medical treatment to unnecessarily

extend the life, but it has made clear that suicide is not permissible; the assisted suicide is also

banned. It believes that true compassion lies in sharing the sufferings of others and not killing the

person who is unable to bear the pain. 0 St. Augustine had interpreted the sixth commandments

“thou shalt not kill” in a manner broad enough to include suicide and euthanasia in it and church

banned suicide way back in 533A.D. declaring that any person who committed suicide would not

be allowed a Christian burial.

The question imposed as regards Christianity viewpoint on euthanasia is that, is it ever right and

therefore permissible to terminate the life of a person for whom there is no reasonable recovery,

who is undergoing severe pain and who has requested that action be taken to hasten his death. To

this question a lot has given resounding negative reply. Some identify euthanasia as murder. The

article on euthanasia in Bakers Dictionary Christian ethics gives such an interpretation.

0
Pope John Paul II, Evangelism Vitae 1995.
0
National Conference of Catholic Bishops (U.S.A) 1991.
0
Supra.

26
 The law distinguished between several types of homicide. Wilful and especially premeditated

killing or murder was always subject to capital punishment0 In contrast with this were cases of

accidental manslaughter, in which the manslayer was clearly immune from the punishment

imposed wilful killing. There were three types of cases: death by blow in a sudden quarrel, 0

death by anything thrown at random, and death by an axe blade flying from its handle.0

Therefore, the element in the biblical concept of murder seems to be intentional, premeditated,

malicious, contrary to the desire or intention of the victim, against someone who has done

nothing deserving of capital punishment.

Joseph fletcher, even as the opponents of euthanasia, looks to scripture for guidance concerning

the ethical status of euthanasia. He bases his decision on the ethical teachings of Jesus regarding

mercy: “But most certainly if there is any provision in the divine law or revealed will of God as

found in the Bible, it is in the fifth beatitude calling for mercy”.0

From the above it concludes that euthanasia is not Gods best course of action for humans due to

the following reasons which are as follows;

First of all, the principle of sanctity of life, while sometimes overextended, does seem to be a

significant consideration. Life is good, and not to be terminated except when clearly unusual

considerations dictate an exception. Also, the finality of euthanasia suggests the caution to us

who believe in a life beyond the present. Euthanasians often speak of a no longer being useful to

others. The Christian who is still able to engage in prayer or to be an encouragement or example

to others even if he cannot involve himself in more active service, can still be very useful in

0
The Holy Bible, Leviticus 24:7, Numbers 35:16-21.
0
Ibid, Numbers 35:22.
0
Ibid, Deuteronomy 19:15.
0
J. Fletcher, Morals and Medicine (Boston: Beacon, 1960) 183.

27
ways not ordinarily recognized by secular or humanist thinkers. Euthanasia also cuts short the

opportunity for non-Christian to accept the Lord’s offer of salvation. Death cuts him off

permanently from fellowship with God. If we believe that there is both personal heaven and a

personal hell beyond this life, then perhaps euthanasia is not mercy-killing at all. It is sending a

person from a bad condition to a worse one. As a secular thinker who does not hold this belief,

philosopher Anthony Flew nevertheless notes the persuasiveness of such an argument for those

who do.0

Also, the advocacy of euthanasia disregards the Biblical perspective on suffering. The bible

certainly seems to identify suffering as an evil, but not an unqualified evil. At times it seems to

have purifying or strengthening effect. This seems to have been true of Job, as well as of Paul 0.

Peter’s reference to the outcome of suffering trials0 and James’ statement about the product of

the testing faith may include allusions to physical suffering. The trials of this life, being brief, are

seen as light or slight when compared with the duration of the blessings that lie ahead. In

addition, the testimonies of the believer’s bearing suffering and of the efficacy of God’s grace

have real value. The act of euthanasia also cuts short the possibility of recovery. This has several

facets. One is the possibility of an error in diagnosis having been made, so that the condition was

not really fatal. While some of us may be inclined to think of medicine as an exact of science, it

is far from infallible in its judgements. In this area, to err is literally and tragically fatal. Further,

there is the possibility of a medical breakthrough to a cure for the illness. Finally, a miraculous

healing by the Lord might spare the life of the patient. While all of these considerations become

less impressive in the later stages of an illness, they cannot be simply overlooked. Furthermore,

there is danger of abuse and perversion of euthanasia, of voluntary euthanasia being extended to
0
Mark Oppenheimer, ‘The Turning of an Athesist’ <https://www.nytimmes.com> accessed March 8 2022.
0
The Holy bible, 2Corinthians 4:17, 12:10.
0
Ibid, 1Peter 1: 6-9.

28
become involuntary. Probably too much use has been made of the “thin edge of the wedge”

principle and of scare tactics appealing to Hilter’s euthanasia practices. Nonetheless, there is

evidence that some who have advocated legalization of voluntary euthanasia regarded that as a

first step towards the legalization of the involuntary form as well. 0 Active euthanasia may prove

to be unnecessary. The extensive use of pain-killers will often relieve the suffering that seems to

call for termination of life. Further, in many of these cases life has sunk to such a low ebb that it

cannot be maintained without extensive use of extraordinary measures.0

Based on the foregoing considerations, it is suggested by some authors that the following

guidelines as an attempt to slip between the horns of euthanasia dilemma. That the present the

laws prohibiting euthanasia, though imperfect in some cases, be retained. That the sustaining

power of God as a resource available for the endurance of suffering be proclaimed by the church.

That Christians regard cases of terminal illness, particularly when accompanied by great

suffering, as opportunities for family and friends to offer a ministry of support and understanding

compassion. Also, the painkillers should be fully utilized by terminal patients who are in great

discomfort, realizing that their use may hasten death. Further, that emphasis be placed on

research and development of more effective painkillers that the possibility of withholding or

withdrawing treatment, although slower in its effect, be considered as an option in some cases

where active euthanasia might be called for

0
Yale Kasimar, Euthanasia Legislation: Some Non-Religious Objections (first published 1958, Downing) 85.
0
BBC News “Proeuthanasia Agument Ethics”, <http://www.com.bbc.co.uk> Accessed 11th March 2022.

29
3.1.2 Islamic Viewpoint

The Islamic region also opposed to the legalization of euthanasia. According to Ephraim, 0

Muslim scholar, just like other religions, Islam upholds the sanctity of life as provided in the

Qur’an, Chapter 5:28 as follows:

If you do stretch your hand to slay me, it is not for me to stretch

my hand to slay you for I do fear God the Cherisher of the worlds.
Islam, however, teaches that human beings are God’s vicegerent (Al-khalifah) in the world 0 and

God (Allah-hereafter this term will be used throughout the text instead of the term ‘God’) 0 has

given human beings respect by giving them control and power over things 0. Muslims are

expected to have faith (iman) and with their faith, they are advised to have virtues of patience

and endurance (sabr) to be able to face the challenges of life. Qur’an 2:155-157 confirms thus:

But give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere Those who
say when affected with calamity, ‘To Allah we belong and to Him
is our return’. They are those on whom descend blessings from
their Lord and mercy. They are the ones who receive guidance.
Islam teaches that Allah gives life and has the absolute authority of taking it. Allah has assigned

a time limit to each soul, after which no additional time can be added by anyone. In short, Allah

alone has control over death0. The maintenance of the sanctity of life is further enhanced when

Allah instructs: “Do not take life which Allah made sacred, other than in the cause of justice” 0.

“The enormity of the sin on a person who deliberately terminates a life other than in the course

of justice such as murder or spreading mischief in the land, is as if the whole people have been

killed by him”0. This means that Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for those who commit
0
A.M Ebrahim, ‘Islamic Perspective Euthanasia’ [2007] 39 JIMA 173.
0
Qur’an 2: 30-31.
0
The word ‘Allah’ literally means ‘God’.
0
Qur’an 22: 65.
0
Qur’an 16:61.
0
Qur’an 17: 33.
0
Qur’an 5:32.

30
grave crimes in order to ensure peace, security and tranquillity in the society. Based on the

following Qur’anic chapter. “O you who believe! Al-Qisas (just retribution) to ensure that only

the guilty of the crime will lose his life when the death sentence is to be carried out.0

With the above Qur’anic verses, it is clear that the verses explicitly prohibit suicide, euthanasia

and other types of homicide. Moreover, Qur’an also prohibits someone causing own destruction

which is an indication that active euthanasia is, indeed, wrong and prohibited. In other words, it

gives a clear position regarding the main facts related to euthanasia all of which includes

prohibition of killing, prohibition of helping on prohibited acts, consenting to self-destruction

and suicide. The Qur’anic chapter 2:195 attests to this:

And spend in the cause of Allah and do not throw ourselves into
destruction and do good. Truly, Allah loves the good-doers.

In a similar way, Muslim scholars have unanimously prohibited active euthanasia and physician-

assisted suicide because both are prohibited by the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

According to Yusuf Al- Qaradawi, “this is an act of killing and killing is a major sin and thus

forbidden in Islam, the religion of pure mercy”0

Sanctity of life being the second objective of the religion, euthanasia is against the Islamic

religious beliefs.0 The shariah law gives five protections to Muslims which are; practicing

religion, upliftment of mind and personality, the right to life, right to property, right to have

children0.

0
A. M. Ebrahim, ‘’Islamic Perspective to Euthanasia’’ [2007] 39 JIMA 173.
0
Ibid.
0
Adeniyi B. Omipidan, ‘’Euthanasia as a Contemporary Issue in the Jurisprudence of Rights: The position of Islamic
Laws’’ [2013] 4 YONSEL 85.
0
Ibid.

31
Any act in violation of these above rights is forbidden under Islam, but the victim has a right to

pardon the wrongdoer. Islam has two types of laws, right of God (haq Allah) and right of man

(haq-al-abd), the former being the public right and the later one being the private right. The

violation of any private right gives the victim an option to forgive the wrongdoer, the right of

God, if violated, prescribe the maximum possible punishment. 0 The right to life of a person is a

mixture of these rights, so if any person kills another intentionally then he must also die, on the

basis of law of equality (qisas)

Human life is considered a scared under Islam0 and there are only some justified grounds have

been given on which a life may be taken. But euthanasia and suicide are not included in that list

of justified grounds.0 Muslims believe that Allah has already decided the length of their lives,

and no person can either delay his death or extend it by his own will, as it is the Allah’s will to

decide when one should die.0 Death is a spiritual exercise in Islam and there is a need to take

Allah’s permission before leaving this world.0

Euthanasia and suicide have been expressly forbidden in the Qur’an. There is a verse saying that

no one should destroy the self and Allah will bestow upon them.0

There is a Hadith also which narrate how the prophet told his disciples that a person who cut his

hand and didn’t stop bleeding to hasten his death was forbidden by Allah to enter Jannah. Abu

Hurairah reported that prophet said that there are seven sins for a Muslim to commit and killing

another human without any just cause was one of them.0

0
Supra Note.
0
Qur’an 17:33.
0
Al-Muslim, Sahih Al-Muslim 107-108; 8 Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al Bukhari 148.
0
Supra Note.
0
Supra Note.
0
Supra Note.
0
Ibid.

32
Islam and euthanasia are considered as incompatible as the former believes in the sanctity of life,

while the latter believes in the quality of life. 0 It has been argued that not only the killing of the

self by the patient is forbidden; it is equally sinful for the physician to do so or assisting his

patients in doing suicide.0

So, Islam is strictly against the practice of euthanasia, this could be seen as one of the reasons

why the countries following the Islam law have never passed any euthanasia legislation nor there

has been any debate in these countries over this issue of euthanasia.

3.2 EUTHANASIA AND MORALITY

Another important aspect on which euthanasia should be judged is that of morality. While the

morality of suicide is still in doubt, many people think that euthanasia or mercy killing is morally

permissible or even obligatory when performed with the person’s consent and is the only option

left to relieve him of the pain.0 According to this view, a man holds an inherent right to be

released from the pain and the doctor is entitled to have moral and legal immunity for the act.

Sir Thomas More, a catholic scholar was among the first to express his views on euthanasia. He

wrote in Utopia that when a person has outlived his life and nothing left but to bear pain, then he

should be relieved from the pain as there is no advantage in nourishing such a life full of

miseries0

Charles Moore opined that euthanasia can be condemned as a form of suicide only on the basis

of religious morality, who later was supported by Hasting Rashald, who approaching the issue as

0
Supra Note.
0
Mohammed Madadin, Houria S Al Sahwan & Khadijah K Altarouti, ‘’The Islamic perspective on physician-
assisted suicide and euthanasia’’ [2020] 60 Medicine, Science and the Law 278.
0
Granville Williams ‘The Morality of Voluntary Euthanasia” pg.311 1957.
0
D. Albert “A Journal of the Mcgrath institute for Church Life”, <http://ww.churchlifejournal,nd,edu.com>
Accessed 11 March 2022.

33
a Christian moralist wrote that there is no benefit in prolonging a life which has lost all the

values and it seems unjustified to force one to live on the basis of moral discipline only.0

To judge the morality of an act, two things need to be considered, first on being the motivation of

the actor and the second one being the certainty of the outcomes. In cases of euthanasia, the

motivation is the humanitarian compassion, relieving a person off the pain he is suffering and the

actor being a trained medical practitioner, the outcome is quite certain and the results are almost

similar to the desired ones0

The crucial issues while deciding the morality of death may be the following0

A. Autonomy
It means that a person is the master of his own life and has all the right to decide as to when and

how to die provided his decision is not plainly irrational. It provides the patient with the right to

decide as to whether he wants to continue his life or not or he wants to continue with the

treatment which is sustaining his life. There is no issue with respect to the capable persons who

are able to communicate their decision to the doctors and for incapable patients, this point

supports the making of living wills by the person to decide in advance how he needs to be treated

in an unfortunate future event. But if euthanasia is allowed in this basis, there are chances of

abuse as doctors may unnecessarily hasten the deaths of patients who have made a living will

and the patients who are still capable may be put under undue pressure to take decision of ending

their lives even if they do not really want it to happen.

0
The Theory of Good and Evil, (Oxford, 1907) 1, 209.
0
Key Paul, ‘’Euthanasia: Law and Morality’’ [1998] 6 AUCKLAND U.L Rev. 224.
0
Dworkin Ronald, Life’s Dominion (First Vintage Books Ed. 1994) 194.

34
B. Best Interest
The patient is the one who is in the best position to ascertain what is best for him and what he

wants. For this reason, he should be allowed to decide in his best interest and opt for euthanasia.

But this point may be opposed on the ground that sometimes the patient himself is not in the best

position to judge what is good for him and what is bad. In the crucial medical conditions, one is

not in a fit medical state to make an unbiased and unemotional informed decision and there are

chances that in the wake of temporary emotions he may take any irreversible permanent decision

ending up his life.

C. Sanctity
Human life has an intrinsic value and it is the property of God, any damage to the God’s property

is an insult and the same should be avoided.

Another aspect to ascertain morality is the resultant cruelty of the act. Cruelty for all civilized

men is immoral and is to be avoided. Euthanasia can be seen in the lights of cruelty also. If a

man is kept alive forcefully, against his will and denying his entire request to be released from

the painful life in a dignified manner and making him witness his self-deterioration is nothing

but magnifying the cruelty which makes him lose the dignity, is one of the most immoral acts to

be done.0 Another aspect of cruelty would be forcing the spouse, children and other relative of

the dying person to witness his decay and his conversion from the robust parent and spouse into

a wretched and mortified creature, annulled of all human poise.0 Such scenes give a

psychological trauma to the surviving relatives which may leave a permanent impairment on

their minds, so in this way, it does not amount as cruelty to only the dying person but also to the

people who are left behind to suffer the pain of helplessness for the rest of their lives. This

0
Morris A. Arval, “Voluntary euthanasia’’ 45 [1970] WASH. L. REV. 239.
0
C M Parks, ‘’Effects of Bereavement on Physical and Mental Health - A study of the Medical Records of Widows’’
[1964] 2 BPH.MED. J. 274 .

35
cruelty is not restricted only to physical and mental rea only, but also in the financial aspect. The

costly medical treatments to prolong otherwise unworthy life may leave the family in huge

financial debts which may in the coming hamper the education of the children and may create

troubles in the normal day to day expenditure of the surviving family members. In this light, we

can say that not allowing euthanasia is simply denying compassion. Making people to endure

unnecessary pain and sufferings is brutal, inhuman and immoral.

Lord Delvin said in the response to the Wolfenden Report in England which recommended

decriminalization of prostitution and homosexual intercourse, that it can be identified with a

common post-war liberal society argument suggesting that morals are a private matter and the

law should not enforce religious morals; if a statute is framed to create victimless crimes then the

act needs to be decriminalized.0 He further said that if a state has refused to enforce Christian

beliefs then it has lost the right to enforce Christians morals also and it must find some

independent backing to give authority to the criminal law.0

It has been argued that the concept of victimless crime is based on the utilitarian consideration of

the cost of putting in police resources to enforce moral laws. If there is a good moral reasoning

for criminalizing an act, then the extraordinary police costing for employing the police force for

the same can be justified0. Those who seek to exclude morals from law, have a narrow

understanding of the morals which identify morals with religious creed. Public support to any

law itself is a kind of positive morality. Thus, excluding religious moral injunctions from law is

simply a change in the moral dimensions and does not at all means to a moralise the law. These

reasoning become relevant to euthanasia as when we talk of voluntary euthanasia, it can also be

0
P. Devlin “Morals and the Criminal Law” in R. Dworkin (ed.) The philosophy of Law (Oxford OUP, 1977)
0
Ibid.
0
D. Richards “Constitutional Privacy, the Right to Die and the Meaning of Life” [1981] 222 Williams and Mary
L.R.327.

36
called a victim less crime. For non-voluntary euthanasia, it can be said that non-existence is no

less harmful than the past non-existence, so it can also be categorized as a victimless crime.

3.2.1 Euthanasia and Moral Murder

The element of morality is inherent in the criminal law, even for the crime of murder. Not only

the general prohibition of murder, but the exceptions of just war, punitive measures and self-

defence also show the inclusion of Christian morals in the criminal law. Mason CJ has expressed

his opinion that culpability is the core element of offence of murder. 0 In this light, the law

reforms in context of euthanasia can be discussed. Coke’s authoritative remark Actus non facit

reum, nisi mens sit rea holds true for the criminal laws.0 Blackstone has defined mens rea as a

defect of will0, and has provided for three types of defects which includes, the defect in

understanding which made the choice impossible, the defect in understanding the relevant facts

at the proper time due to ignorance or by sheer chance, the effect arising due to coercion leading

in a particular set of actions.0

Hart observed that the Christian moral theory which held a person responsible for those acts only

which he committed voluntarily by free consent, is present in the criminal law in form of

requirement of moral element in the murder. 0 Blackstone suggested that mens rea has become a

defence put up by the accused, but initially it was one which the judge sought in him to held him

culpable.0 With time, the conception of subjective and objective test of culpability also came in

picture. The objective truth is now the basis for all culpability and a truth which lacks any

subjective element can only be said to be an objective truth. The theory of Norman law, Sedato

0
Royall v R, (1991) 100 ALR 669 at 678.
0
J. Stephens, A History of the Criminal Law of England (Macmilian Publishers, London 1883) 13.
0
W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th edn, London, Strahan, 1803) 20.
0
Supra Notes.
0
H. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967) 69.
0
Supra Note.

37
Amino also changed its conception and came to be understood as killing a person, stripping him

of all human dignity and denying him a Christian burial. This concept developed some

exceptions which included various acts like killing of a chid by parents while chastising him,

killing a lunatic, a burglar and many other cases. According to this, the act of killing was not

murder, but the following elements constituted murder: internationally acting in a manner to

disrespect the honour of the deceased. Planning to kill and making arrangements for execution of

the plan0.

So, mens rea not only focused upon the way in the person died, but looked at the broader picture

and took notice all the factors which played a role in the formation of intention and motive. Such

broad outlook makes mens rea amenable to both the Christian morals and the contemporary

understanding of law, identifying with the guilty mind and the act.

The secularization of law and the dominance of modern jurisprudence have changed the way in

which we understand mens rea now. The oblique intention test proposed by Bentham, which is

the test of normal b stander looking at the act, is the new standard of locating the malice. 0 The

same test is used for locating the element murder in mercy killings which rely on the principle of

double effect and create a dilemma for doctor palliative care regime. As per this test, culpability

is equated with knowledge, where one has reasonable apprehension of the possible outcomes, and

then he is culpable for such consequences.

The present test for malice requires that is the accused is of sound mind and any person with a

sound mind could have foreseen the consequences, then he is said to have acted with malice.

Thus, the present requirement does not require the classical requirement of stripping the deceased

with honour.

0
J. Stephens, A History of the Criminal Law of England (Macmilian Publishers, London 1883) 13.
0
A. Kenny, The Ivory Tower (Oxford, Blackwell, 1985).

38
The starting point for any social law reform is that the people are not happy and content with the

present system and they need some change as the present practice may put in question the

humanity, justice and the efficiency of the legal system. Social practices are of two types: primary

and secondary. Primary are those which are to be seen from a broader angle and are not confined

to conventional legal categorization, they are seen in terms of legal system of belief, and people

follow them for their own sake. Secondary ones on the other hand are the people in the society do

not have any influence on the act of others and any movement away from such practices is an

attempt to put things on the right track.0

The opposition to euthanasia in society is not due to the mere fact of antagonism to killing, but the

real fear is that if such right of self-determination is granted to the people then the state might lose

the monopoly it enjoys so far the killing is form of punitive deaths. 0 So a medical practitioner

having ample knowledge and foresee ability of the consequences of the desired act, can be said to

have an intention and acting under malice, making him culpable under the law. To allow

euthanasia and saving the doctors from the legal culpability, there is a need change the test of

intention.0

3.2.2 Euthanasia and the Sanctity of Life

Sanctity of life principle is the strongest argument against euthanasia. This principle holds that

human life has an absolute value and cannot be destroyed by human action. This principle finds

its roots in the religious beliefs of supremacy of God and humans being mere caretakers of the

bodies gifted by God.

There are two types of rights that human being has over his life, they are: derivative and

detached right. The derivative right is based in the presumption that every human being has the
0
Canadian Law Reform Commission, ‘’Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment’’ Working Paper
28.
0
Ibid.
0
Supra note 64.

39
right to be alive or a right of not to be kill and euthanasia or any attempt to shorten the human

life is an attack on derivative right of that person, corresponding to which the state has a

derivative duty to save that person’s life0.

The second right, the detached one is based in the presumption that every human has an inherent,

instinctive right of being alive. This right is called ‘detached’ because it is not dependent on any

presumption of humans having rights. Human life is to be preserved just for the inherent value it

holds. The state has a detached value corresponding to this right to protect every human life. 0

Sanctity of life suggests that every premature end of life is intrinsically bad in itself even if it not

bad for any particular person. Scholars have argued that a thing can be sacred only when it is

beneficial to someone or it serves some purpose, but there is another angle at looking at things,

something is sacred not because of the purpose it serves, but just for the fact of its being and life

in itself is on one such thing which should be cherished and held sacred just for its being. It’s

worth and sacredness is independent of any advantage it bears to the person living it.

The next issue that arises is whether the human life is intrinsically, subjectively or instrumentally

valuable means that it serves some purpose for others i.e., other people have an advantage of a

person living his life. Subjective importance is how much worth person assigns to his life, how

much happiness he derives from it and how much he wants to continue his life. Intrinsic

importance is when any dishonour to any such thing which ought to be honoured. Human life

possesses all these three kinds of importance, but is the subjective importance basis of which the

state is bound to protect the human life.0 Sometimes it is argued that God created human life as

his own image and destruction of single life in many circumstances may amount to the

destruction of the whole mankind.

0
Gov.UK. “Free Movement Rights: Derivative Rights of Residence”,
<https://www.assets.publishing.service.gov.uk>Accessed 11 March 2022.
0
Supra Note 53 at 69-70.
0
Supra Note 53 at 69-70.

40
Sanctity of life principle gives utmost value to life and suggests that it must be preserved at any

cost. It has two important elements to support the life:

A. Vitalism
It says that every possible effort should be made to preserve the human life and also to prolong it

with all the means because human life is an unqualified value in itself. 0 Theology supports this

point as the Judeo-Christian belief of supremacy of God over life as he only is the giver and no

human can be the complete master of his own life or of any other human being give us the

message only.0 This value opposes euthanasia on the fact that as right to give away his life,

consent of a patient in dying does not reduce the turpitude of an act and it remains murder.

Intuition and experience also support the vitality theory. Our sheer experience of being alive and

the fear of death common to the human race, show that life is to be revered. But this argument is

not universal and sometimes has a situational application also. There are situations when saving

or prolonging the life of a person would do more harm than good to the person.

B. Quality of Life
The second component of sanctity of life is the quality it holds and the fact that it is better than

death. Death can be taken in two senses: social and biological on the basis of proposition of

corpus sine persona, where corpus refers to the body, the merely bodily existence and persona

means the element of life which identifies the personality and gives meaning to the bodily

existence. The issue here is that life should not be treated as mere bodily existence. The issue

here is that life should not be treated as mere bodily existence and should be considered more

than the simple continuation of vital bodily functions like respiration, necessary to live but rather

it requires a self-consciousness and engagement of the same with the worldly affairs.0
0
Supra Note 65.
0
Rachels (ed), Moral Problems: A Collection of Philosophical Essays (Harpercollins College Div, 1979).
0
J. Rachels, The End of Life (Melbourne, OUP, 1986); P. Singer, Practical Ethics (2nd ed., Cambridge, CUP, 1993).

41
The quality of life can be judges on two parameters experiential interest and the critical interests.

Experiential interests are those which are derived from experiencing various things in life.

Everything in life gives some sort of pain or pleasure in life and adds to the experiences one has.

If the pleasure is more than the pain, then it can be said that the quality of life is good. On the

other hand, critical interests are that which genuinely affect one’s life that is their presence

makes the life genuinely better and their absence genuinely makes it worse. If the things which

make life better outnumber the things which make it worse, then it can be termed as a good life

worth living.0

Sanctity of life principle gives heavy weightage to equality of all the lives. It says that each and

every life irrespective of the circumstances and the condition in which it is being led, without

comparison to the other lives is unique and special in itself and should be given importance on its

own basis. Just the fact one life is better than the other or a person is in better conditions than the

other does not create any difference. The importance of life is inherent in itself and no external or

outside factor can reduce or diminish its value.

There is a humanist view of this principle of sanctity of life, which means that this principle

gives importance to the human life also and not to lives of other creatures. Humans are

considered superior to other creatures because they are free and autonomous. They have a sense

of judgement and can base their decisions on rationality. So human life is not mere pulse and

breathes, but many more than that.0 If the capacity of free decision making is taken away from

humans, they would become automatons and such mechanical life could hardly be called sacred.

This theory suggests that the value of human life lies not in the fact that it is a gift from God, but

that humans are master of their own will, rational and prudent, having a sense of judgement to

0
Supra Note 53.
0
Helga Kuhse, ‘’The Sanctity of Life Doctrine in Medicine: A critique’’ [1988] 14 Journal of Medical Ethics 161.

42
decide for themselves in their best interest. They have the capacity to design their destinies by

using logic, reason and conscience. This theory does not deny the existence of God, rather it

believes that out of all God has chosen only human and bestowed them with this power of

thinking and decision making, so humans are special. 0 So, the basic belief of this theory is that

God gave us life but it has derived its sanctity from the decision-making power that the humans

use themselves by exercising their own free will.

Under the humanitarian conception, it is permissible for a human being to end his life by way of

suicide or shortening it by refusing to take treatment. They are the masters of their lives and have

an inherent right to decide as to the way they want to live and die as it is not merely an animal

existence which is called life but much more beyond that. 0 But the pre requirement of choosing

to die here is the decision must be an informed one and making out while the mental faculties are

still working. The decision should be of the self and not one imposed by others. This ground

gives way to prepare the living wills whereby the person whose choice of death is in question has

made a reasoned decision while he could decide and communicates the same through in the form

of that document when the fateful time arrives. Love and compassion are two basic tenets of this

theory which support euthanasia or the physician assisted suicide0 this can be said to be the

reason why maximum jurisdictions do not prosecute the doctor if the death of the patient is the

result of his own request, due to the right of self-determination of the patient.0

But, basing the euthanasia debate on the basis of vitalism and quality of life is not entirely

satisfactory. It is not practically possible to show that the life is the most elemental experience

and it can be validly argued that to oppose euthanasia, these two factors are not complete in
0
Raanan Gillon, Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia, in Euthanasia and the right to death (A.B. Downing ed.,1969).
0
Algernon D. Black, ‘’Our Quest for Faith: Is Human Enough?’’ In Paul Kurtz, The Humanist Alternative
(Prometheus Publishers, 1973).
0
Previn M. Mattews, ‘’Assisted Suicide and Religion: Conflicting Conception of the Sanctity of the Human Life’’
[1995] 84 GEO. L.J. 1995.
0
Dennis J. Baker (ed), The Sanctity of Life and The Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

43
themselves and do not give any concrete ground. Human life is to be considered in a very

broader way and it is not merely that a person has got a life then he has to live at any cost in any

condition. That would be torture. Various aspects like utility, pleasure willingness to live etc

should be taken into account while deciding that a person should continue to live or put an end to

his life.

3.2.3 Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope

The slippery slope or the wedge argument says that a course of action if followed generally

would injure the humanity, and then the same should not be followed even in an individual case. 0

This argument is used by the traditional people to oppose any law reform because it is the most

obvious point they have to be raised in any situation. This argument works on the hypothesis

that if an act A is allowed then B would certainly follow, where B in itself is morally unjustified

and just to avoid the arising of situation B, A is to be not allowed by question its morally.0

The wedge argument has two versions: logical and empirical. The logical version states that

there is no abstract difference between A and B and therefore the acceptance of A will certainly

lead to acceptance of B. it is on this ground, it is feared that if we today allow the voluntary

euthanasia, then in the coming times the involuntary euthanasia will also be followed and it

would become impossible to discriminate between the two and decide what I justified and what

is unjustified. But the humanist says that this argument against euthanasia is not maintain able as

the line of distinction between the two forms is easily recognized and the distinction between

two is very wide and clear.0

0
Joseph V. Sullivan, Catholic Teaching on the Morality of Euthanasia (CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform, 2011).
0
Wibren Van Der Burg, ‘’The Slippery Slope argument’’ [1991] 102 Ethics 42.
0
‘’A Humanist Discussion of Euthanasia’’ (Issues Online, 2015) <https://www.issuesonline.co.uk/articles/a-
humanist-discussion-of-euthanasia-4509> Accessed 17 February 2022.

44
The second one is the empirical or the psychological version. It suggests that if we follow A,

then it would lead to a change in the mental attitude and psychology in such a way that we will

be more amenable to accept B also and a time will come when B will ultimately follow and

accepted just because of the acceptance of A. Opponents of euthanasia claim that if today we

allow some form of justified killing by non-state authorities, then a time may come that even non

justified killing would be allowed and it would disturb the balance of the civilized society. But

the humanists who support euthanasia counter this claim by saying that the passing of euthanasia

law would be an altogether different area, with no disturbance caused to the law of murder.

Assisting a patient in dying who has expressly asked for it is totally different from the

involuntary killing of a patient and by no means acceptance of the former can change the

attitudes of the people in such a way to allow the latter, which is totally different and unjustified

form of euthanasia.0

So, the main fear that the opponents have is that allowing a smaller thing today would ultimately

result in the acceptance of the bigger thing in the coming time. Considering the smaller thing to

be a part of the mere process they suggest that it should be curbed in the initial stages only so

that it not allowed to continue so that the whole process is brought to an end and there is no

change in any social practice arise only when the people who constitute the society are not happy

with the present system and they want it to be changed so as to meet the requirement of the

changing times and needs. These social movements of change are generally initiated by the

lawyers as they know the loopholes and the areas which can be attacked to bring in the desired

changes0.

0
Ibid.
0
Jacob M., “A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? Rethinking the Controversy of 1906”
<https://www.jstor.orgn/stable/44448062> Accessed 11 March 2022.

45
As far as euthanasia is concerned, there are fears that if we allow a milder form, that is, the

euthanasia with the help of physician then a situation may arise that tomorrow the assisted

suicide without the help of any qualified person would also be permitted or if today the voluntary

euthanasia is allowed , then the acceptance of involuntary euthanasia will follow, creating a

situation where the human life would become a mere joke and the life off the patient would be at

the doctors whim and mercy, he being the sole master of deciding whether one should live or

not and thus taking away the authority from the God or state and keeping it in his own hands.

But this argument does not hold at any strong base. It is not necessary that B will essentially

follow A. there is no surety that if the first step of the process is taken then the whole process

will be inevitable completed. It is only upon the society how much it allows the process to take

place. Initially there were oppositions to practices like abortion and deoxyribonucleic acid

(DNA) test, grounding the arguments on the same basis, but today when these practices have

been legally permitted, we see that they are not at all dangerous as they were feared initially. 0 As

far as the issue of misuse of the power by the doctors is concerned, then it is to be noted that the

legislation will take care of all the safeguards to be followed in cases of euthanasia and it would

not be a free play where anybody could do whatever he desires. There will be checks on the

working of the various stake holders. Doctors not only will be bound by the guidelines of the

legislation, but also by the medical ethics which they follow essentially in the performance of

their duties. In my opinion, opposing euthanasia on the basis of slippery slope argument, fearing

some hypothetical situation does not seem to be logical one.

3.3 ETHICAL ISSUES ON EUTHANASIA

Several debates have been raised against Euthanasia based on the grounds of ethics. One of such

is that is although every patient truly has a right to self-autonomy, it is ethical necessary to
0
Ibid.

46
consider the effect such patient’s decision on his or her family members or loved ones. This can

be regarded as relational autonomy. 0 The relational autonomy recognizes human beings do not

live in isolation but rather in a web of relationships that influence our decisions.0 As such, when

making a decision on euthanasia, autonomy should be considered from the perspectives of a

patient’s loved ones also.

Another argument that has been raised ethically against euthanasia is that euthanasia affects the

rights of others and not only that of the patient. Every doctor and medical practitioner has a right

to freedom of conscience and belief. Medical practitioners take on the profession with the aim

and motive of saving lives.

However, legalizing euthanasia would amount to the opposite of such motive and put such

medical practitioner at a dilemma as whether to go against his or her morals in order to satisfy

the patient or uphold his or her morals. As such, euthanasia is not just a tough decision for

patient and his or her loved ones, but also for the medical practitioner involved.

Also, in cases when the patient makes a request for euthanasia because of depression, or he or

she feels like a burden, or a feeling of vulnerability, such decision is one that is not in the best

interest of the patient, even though it is an autonomous decision.

Another ethical argument is that legalizing euthanasia devalues lives as it sends the message that

it is better to be dead than to be sick or disable. As such sick or disabled people tend to feel less

of themselves and worthless, thereby opting for the alternative of euthanasia. Ethically, it has

also been argued that the practice of euthanasia would put the medical practitioners in a place of

God.

0
Nedelsky J. Law’s Relation: A relational Theory of Self, Autonomy and Law (New York, NY: Oxford University
Press 2011) 58.
0
Ibid.

47
3.3.1 Purpose of Medical Care

Generally medical care aims to achieve four things namely, to cure sickness when it occurs, to

prevent the reoccurrence of illness, where the sickness cannot be cured, to prevent it from further

deterioration, and to relieve pain or suffering in the body and mind of a patient. 0 It follows

therefore that where a medical care is not administered to achieve any of the above aims; it is all

together useless and ought to be discontinued.

Reasoning along similar line, the master of Rolls in Antony Bland case said: ‘I doubt if it has

ever been an object of medical care merely to prolong the life of an insensate patient with no

hope of recovering where nothing can be done to promote any of these objects’ 0. It is therefore

plausible to ask whether there is justification on moral grounds to hasten the death of a death of a

patient suffering from incurable sickness. If in the circumstance hastening of death relieves pain

and further suffering, should death encourage on the basis of furthering one of the aims of

treatment? While the court seem to say in one breath that any hastening of death will be

wrongful, it at the same time appears to recognise though hypocritically that ending life in those

circumstances is proper. For instance, the court permitted a hospital to discontinue medical care

to a patient suffering from Guillian-Barre syndrome where the treatment and care were only

administered with the sole purpose of maintaining the patient life, not geared to cure or improve

the condition of the patient. His Lordship said:

In my view, doctors have lawfully excused to discontinue

ventilation when there is no medical justification for continuing
that form of medical assistance. To require the administration of
a life support system when medical function or purpose are
served only to defer the death of the patient is to confound the
purpose of medicine.0

0
Bland Case (1993) 3WLR 316.
0
Ibid.
0
(1993) INZLR 235 at 253

48
His Lordship, justified euthanasia for incurable cases like cancer and passed the responsibility of

deciding the desirability or otherwise of euthanasia to doctors’ judgment of what constitute

euthanasia. Also his Lordship added as caveat to it a further requirement: ‘that in all such cases

the doctor must adhere to medical procedures which safeguard against possible medical error of

individual judgement’ This would in effect mean that all doctor need not to act unlawful is to

seek medical opinion from at least another physician as to whether the opinion has reached on

the patient’s best interest is corroborative.

These opinions suggest that medical treatment is not the best interest of a patient hospital

authorities will be justified in discontinuing or in not initiating treatment. The effect would allow

death with least pain and suffering. Such action is legally permissible.

3.3.2 Naturalist Issue on Euthanasia

Moralist would argue that life is sacred great gift from God that must be treasured at all and

every cost. So, to the extent that euthanasia treats life with no regard it is considered unethical. If

death is inevitable however, some moralist may have fewer objections if the patient refuses to

lengthen the dying process. What appears more objectionable to them is hastening of the dying

process. Christian moralist will cite the case of king Saul. When he was fatally injured and death

was eminent, his armour bearer refused his request to help him die with dignity, rather than from

the hand of a considered unclean enemy0 David prescribed death penalty for the person who

claimed to have done mercy killing of King Saul. 0 David considered euthanasia has a crime

against the giver of life, God.

0
The Holy Bible, 2 Samuel 31:4.
0
Ibid, 2 Samuel1: 1-6-16.

49
3.3.3 Role of the Court

Where should the choice of medical treatment decisions be made? Are courts the proper forum

for making treatment choices? Some doubt the courts as proper forum Lord Goff said, ‘the law

does not feel able to authorize euthanasia.’ 0 It means that the courts have no legal power to

authorise euthanasia because it is to every intent and purpose illegal

In a jurisdiction like Nigeria where all criminal offences and their defences are codified, it will

prove difficult to use court’s civil declarations as defences for criminal charges unless such

declarations are already recognised by the statute in question. For example, the defence for

murder under Criminal law Code can hardly accommodate a situation where a doctor can plead

court authorisation. That being the case a doctor who obtains such authorisation and proceeds to

withhold treatment may expose himself to a charge.

Defence if any, must therefore be structured in such a way that it can be accommodated by

section 306 of the Criminal Code. In that case the doctor’s defence will be under the provisions

of the Code on the facts of authorisation as pointing to a lack of intention to kill. This no doubt is

an unpleasant way to raise a defence0

Usually, it will be reasonable to expect that court declarations would constitute complete bar to

criminal prosecution. If it does not, it is suggested that that would be a good ground for the

attorney-General to enter to a nolle proseque to a criminal charge.

3.3.4 Deciding what Constitute Best Interest

To justify treatment cessation the preponderance of authorities suggests that it must be in the best

interest of patient to cease treatment. But who decides what the best interest is, especially if the

patient cannot express a wish or never did express one before becoming competent? Whose

0
Airdale NHS v. Bland 3 WLR 316 at 350.
0
Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 ANLLR 400 (HC).

50
standard should be used in judging the quality of life? Should it be the patient, or doctor or the

community? What index should be used in deciding what constitute best interest of the patient?

It no doubt brings us face to face with problem of formulating the critical equation. 0 The fact that

a patient suffers severe pain ought not to be the exclusive reason why treatment must cease. On

the scale of equation, pain is just one factor to be considered. Handler J in Re Conroy said:

Clearly, a decision to focus exclusively on pain as the single

criterion ignores and devalues other important ideals regarding
life and death. Consequently, a pain standard cannot serve as a
significant concern that bears on the decision to forgo life-
prolonging treatment.0

The moral and legal distinction between euthanasia and treatment cessations remains

controversial. The former remains unlawful unlike the latter. In Frenchary Health Care NHS

Trust v S. for example, the English Court of Appeal 0 held that it is in the best interest of a patient

whose gastronomy tube was accidentally dislodged during a PVS treatment not to be replaced.

Also, in Auckland Area Health Board v. A.G,0 the New Zealand court held that where no

medical benefit would result to a patient the doctor can withdraw treatment even if the resultant

effect is death. In Auckland the patient, suffering from Guillain-Barre syndrome had his brain

disconnected from the body leading to complete sensory loss and paralysis. He was kept alive by

means of a ventilator, unlike Bland case where the patient was kept going through an artificial

feeding process. The question presented to Thomas J was very pointed, similar to that put before

the trial court in Bland case by the official solicitors, namely: whether or not the doctor by his

proposal to withdraw the artificial ventilation support would not make himself criminally

responsible for homicide under the law? In the traditional manner of making euthanasia less
0
Ibid.
0
Ibid.
0
(1994) Times, 12 February 2022.
0
(1993) 1 NZLR 235, (1993) 4 Med LR 239.

51
graphic by masking it to appear as treatment cessation, Thomas J reformulated the issue to the

effect that: the question was whether a doctor is under a duty to continue medical treatment

which has no medical benefit notwithstanding that the effect of so doing would result in death of

the patient. Using a common-sense reason, he held that ‘real life’ was being enjoyed by the

patient, but a mere ‘manifestation of life’, which should end without medical assistance. The

doctor was lawfully excused to discontinue treatment in the circumstance.

Simply put, all the cases show that allowing a patient to die by withholding or withdrawing

treatment in certain circumstances is permissible if it is in a patient’s best interest, or if medical

treatment will serve no further beneficial purpose, but actively assisting a patient to die is

criminal. If the facts fit into classification of the former, it is advisable for the doctor to seek

court permission before ceasing to treat in all cases.

52
 CHAPTER FOUR

LEGAL STATUS OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia is one idea that has not recently ignited discussion in the legal systems of states.

Regardless of whether the act of euthanasia ought to be sanctioned or left illicit has been a

common subject of argument across countries of the world and, surprisingly, global bodies like

the United Nations, African Union, among others have been addressed on their perspectives and

discernment to the issue. This is generally because euthanasia is a subject relating to basic

freedom, which is a part of life extraordinarily reverend by global associations or local area and

states overall.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights broadcasted that the underpinning of

opportunity, equity and harmony on the planet is the acknowledgment of the inborn pride and the

equivalent and unavoidable right of all individuals from the human family. Everybody is

perceived to reserve the privilege to life, to be equivalent under the watchful eye of the law and

to be qualified without segregation for the equivalent security under the law. Over the long haul,

this Declaration has been enhanced by more explicit decrees, among which is the Article 6 of the

1996 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Right which states that; "Each person has

the intrinsic right to life. This right will be safeguarded by regulation. Nobody will be with no

obvious end goal in mind denied of his life". It implies that the right to life has been given an

unmistakable spot in this remarkable global common freedoms instrument. This additionally

applies to a few other common liberties.

53
Likewise, similarly as the global networks have been buzzling about the act of Euthanasia a few

states and nation have inspected the idea of killing and accepted a situation concerning whether

or not it would be drilled and sanctioned in their separate regions.

It is hence critical that in suggesting the legitimization of the act of Euthanasia in Nigeria, the

practice of euthanasia in states and countries where it has been legalized, alongside a proposed

draft bill. This would be adequately done in this chapter.

4.1 LEGAL STATUS IN SOME WESTERN JURISDICTIONS

Euthanasia is such an issue which is not confined to any particular country, but has been a matter

of debate all around the world. Not only in Nigeria but other nations have also faced the legal

dilemma of passing legislation with respect to euthanasia. Out of them many countries have

legalized the active euthanasia, while others have allowed the passive one. There are examples of

nations who have such national laws which already provide a scope for euthanasia without

passing any special legislation to that effect. Euthanasia has gained the attention of the

international community at the organizational level as well. The position of other countries on

euthanasia shall be examined, both from the perspective of legalizing and prohibiting euthanasia.

Therefore, the following section will put some light on the position of law in various nations and

judicial response.

4.1.1 Euthanasia in the United States

The legalization of euthanasia in the United States is surrounded by extremely controversial

debates and there have been several cases of court acquittals throughout history, based mostly on

the right to self-determination0.

Emmanuel E.J., ‘The History of Euthanasia Debates in the United States and Britain’ [1994] Annals of internal
0

Medicine 54.

54
Historically, debates on euthanasia in the United States could be traced to 1870, when Samuel

Williams, a commentator, proposed to the Birmingham Speculative Club that euthanasia should

be permitted where a person had a painful and hopeless illness, in order to being about a quick

and painless death0 Samuel William’s proposal sparked up a very intense debate on euthanasia, it

was reprinted in popular magazines and books, and debated in meetings of the American

Medical Societies. It eventually led to the sponsoring of the Ohio bill in 1906, which was a bill to

legalize euthanasia- “An Act Concerning Administration of Drugs etc. to Mortally Injured and

Diseased Persons”.0 However, after several months of debate, the bill ended up being rejected 0.

Euthanasia advocacy in the United States started again during the 1960s and 1970s.0

Overtime, several major court cases advanced the legal rights of the patients, or their guardians,

to practice at least voluntary passive euthanasia. These include the Karen Ann Quinlan case,0

Washington v. Gluckberg case0 and Terry Schiavo case. The various legislative rulings and legal

precedents that were brought about in the wake of Quilan case had their ethical foundation in the

famous 1983 respect completed by the President’s commission for the study of Ethical Problems

in Medicine, under the title “Deciding to Forgo Life sustaining Treatment” 0. The commission in

its findings opined that it was morally acceptable to give up a life-supporting therapy and that

withdrawing such a therapy is the same thing from an ethical stand-point, while artificial feeding

and other life-supporting therapy are of the same importance for the patients and doctors. Before

0
All Answers Ltd, ‘United States Law And History On Euthanasia’ (Lawteacher.net, February 2022)
<http://www.lawteachee.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/united-states-law-and-history-on-euthanasia-medical-law-
essay.php?vref=1> accessed 17 February 2022.
0
Ibid.
0
Emmanuel E.J., ‘The History of Euthanasia Debates in the United States and Britain’ [1994] Annals of internal
Medicine 54.
0
Ibid.
0
[1976] 355 A 2d 647.
0
[1997] 521 U.S 702.
0
Angell Marcia, How to Die in Massachusetts (The New York Review Of Books, 2014).

55
the report, to withdraw a medical therapy was regarded as much as more serious decision than

not to extent a therapy at all, while artificial feeding was viewed as a special treatment0

Currently, as in other certain legal constitutional and political matters, the question regarding

lawful recognition of euthanasia is left for each state to decide. This is due to the fact that the

matter touches on the whole level of medical ethics and the position of each state. 0 Most states in

the United States have not recognized euthanasia. In Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was

convicted for second-degree murder for injecting a controlled substance into his patient who

requested a painless exit from life.0 However some states in the United States have legalized

euthanasia. These states include the state of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont,

Montana, Washington, and California. Thus, the practice of euthanasia in some of these states,

specifically Oregon, California, and Washington shall be examined briefly in subsequent

paragraphs

The state of Oregon became the first state to legalize the practice of euthanasia in the United

States in 1997, following the approval of Measure 16 by the Oregon voters in1994, a Death with

Dignity Act (ballot Act) which permitted terminally ill patient under the proper safeguards, to

obtain a physician’s prescription to end life in a humane and dignified manner. As such, the

Death with Dignity Act was enacted on 27th October, 1997 and it allowed terminally ill

Oregonians to end their lives through voluntary self-administration of a lethal dose of

medication, which would be prescribed by a medical practitioner for that purpose. This mean that

Oregon only supports passive euthanasia, where the physician would prescribe medication that

0
Ibid.
0
Joshua Samson Ayobami, ‘Euthanasia: Socio-Medical and Legal Perspective’ [2014] 4 International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science 96.
0
Robinson B.A. ‘’Physician Assisted Suicide Outside The U.S’’ (Religious Tolerance, November 2000)
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth.wld.htm.> Accessed 24 January 2022.

56
would help end the life of the terminally ill patient. As such, the terminally ill patient must be

able to administer such medications or herself.

The state has however put in place a legal safeguard for every patient to fulfil in order to access

such medication. Under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, to access assisted suicide in Oregon,

certain conditions must be met, in order to qualify the person seeking such treatment as eligible.

For the patient to be eligible, he or she must be:0

i) 18 years or older

ii) Resident in the country;

iii) Capable of making and communicating health decision for him or herself. That is, in the

opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient’s attending physician or consulting physician,

psychiatrist or psychologist a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care

decisions to health care providers including communications through persons are available;0

iv) Diagnosed with terminal illness that will lead to death within 6 months;

v) The patient must make two oral requests, at least 15 days apart, and one written request

for the medication. The written request must be signed before two witnesses; criteria outlined in

the law regulate who may be witnesses. Forty-eight hours must elapse between the written

request and the provision of the prescription

Also, for the physician prescribing the lethal dose of medication;0

i) The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patients;

ii) The physician’s diagnosis must include terminal illness;

0
Julia Nicol and Marlisa Tiedmann, ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Law in Selected Countries’ [2015] 116 E
Library of Parliament 2.
0
United States, Oregon, State Legislature, ‘The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Oregon Revised Statutes, c 127,
127.800, s.101(3).
0
Julia Nicol and Marlisa Tiedmann, ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Law in Selected Countries’ [2015] E
Library of Parliament 2 .

57
iii) The physician’s diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also

certify that the patient is mentally competent and communicate health care decisions;

iv) If either physician determines that the patient’s judgement is impaired, the patient must

be referred for a psychological examination;

v) The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care

and other pain management options0

vi) The physician must request that the patient inform his or her next of kin of his or her

request for a prescription, although the physician cannot obligate an individual to do so.

vii) Details must be included in the patient’s medical record concerning the requests,

diagnosis, prognosis, any counseling that occurred and the doctor’s offer to rescind the request.

viii) The physician has an obligation to inform the Oregon’s Department of Human

Services once he or she issues a prescription.

Therefore, without meeting any of these requirements and conditions, such person cannot access

and make use of euthanasia, legally, in Oregon. Any of such practice of euthanasia, which

contradicts the prescribed manner in which it must be carried out, would be deemed illegal.

Subsequently in February 2015, a bill was tendered to amend the definition of “terminal disease”

in the Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. 0 The amendment was to allow a patient with an

incurable disease, which is expected to result to death within one year, instead of six months, to

access a prescription for lethal medication. However, no committee hearing has been held.

Also, on November 4, 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize euthanasia for

terminally ill patients in the United States. This was done by the passing of the Dignity Act 2009,

by a ballot initiative. The law came into force on the 5 th of March, 2009 and it protects doctors

0
Ibid.
0
Ibid.

58
from being criminally prosecuted under a state law forbidding anyone from aiding in a suicide

attempt.0 Euthanasia law is codified in Washington’s Dignity Act 2009. To qualify for the

prescription, according to the Washington’s Dignity Act 20090 the person must be:

An adult who is competent, is a resident of Washington state,

and has been determined by attending a physician and
consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease
and who has voluntary expressed his or her wish to die, may
make written request for medication that the patient may self-
administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified
manner.0

Also, such individual must have a terminal illness and have less than six months to live, as

determined by his or her physician. The patient or caretaker (through a power of attorney and

advanced directive may request lethal doses of medication that allow the patient to die peacefully

without pain.0

Also, another state in the United States which has legalized the practice of euthanasia is the state

of California. Its legalization could be traced to Bill AB 15, which was passed in September

2015 by the Californian legislature and signed on 5th October, 2015, by Jerry Brown, who was

the governor of California.0 The Bill is also known as the “End of Life Option Act” and it allows

assisted suicide for competent adult, residents in state, with terminal illnesses and life expectancy

of less than six months.0 It allows terminally ill adults resident in the state of California to access

medical aid in dying by self-administering lethal drugs, provided specific circumstances are met.0
0
Findlaw, ‘’Washington Euthanasia Laws’’ (FindLaw) <www.statelaws.fiindlaw.com/washington-law/Washington-
euthanasia-laws.html> accessed on 17 February, 2022.
0
Codified as RCW 70.245 passed on November 4 2008 and went into effect March 5, 2009
<.https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-978&full=true> accessed 18 March, 2022.
0
Ibid.
0
Ibid.
0
Julia Nicol and Marlisa Tiedmann, ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Law in Selected Countries’ [2015] 116 E
Library of Parliament 2
<https://top.part.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublication/BackgroundPapers/PDF/2015-116-E >
Accessed 17 February 2022.
0
Botelho G., ‘’California Governor Signs Right to Die Bill’’ (CNN, 2015) <http://cnn.it/IU4lnsd> Accessed 18
February 2022.
0
‘’End of Life Option Act: The Coalition for Compassionate Care California’

59
The California End of Life Act is very similar to the Oregon Death and Dignity Act, except that

it expires in 10years and can be renewed by the legislators. 0 Also, the California Act, unlike the

Oregon Act, provides that a doctor must meet privately with the person seeking prescription and

ascertain that he or she is not being coerced or unduly influenced 0 and prohibits an insurance

carrier from communicating information about the availability of an aid-in-dying drug unless

requested to do so0.

Under the terms of the Act, the individual must be over the age of 18 and possessing full

capacity to make an independent decision to end his or her life as well as be able to administer

the drugs him or herself. Participation in all aspects of the bill is voluntary for all involved and

the application must be made to both an attending and consulting physician with a gap of no

fewer than 15 days, a mental health specialist such as psychiatrist or licensed psychologist. 0 The

law does not specify which drugs must be prescribed. Under the law cause of death is given as

the original illness on the death certificate and no mention is made of the act of suicide.0

4.1.2 Euthanasia in Netherlands

In Netherlands, the law allows active voluntary euthanasia and it is understood as the deliberate

termination of life of a person by another, on the request of the former. 0 Also the Dutch Penal

Code makes euthanasia a crime, but does not regard it as murder, which is in accordance to

Article 293 of the Dutch Penal Code, which clearly states that killing a person a person is

<https://scienceofcaring.ucsf.edu/policy/making-sense-california%25E2%2580%2599s-end-life-option-act >
Accessed on 17th February 2022.
0
Supra Note.
0
Ibid.
0
Ibid.
0
End of Life Option Act, p.72.
0
Ibid.
0
Dillman RJM, ‘’Legemate J. Euthanasia in The Netherlands; the state of the debate’’ [1994] 1 EUR J Health Law
81.

60
considered as a crime but termination of life on request and assistance in suicide are to be taken

as exceptions.

The euthanasia controversy sparked in Netherlands Postma Case0, where a doctor on demand of

her mother gave some lethal dose which resulted in her death. The doctor was suspended for one

month and was kept on probation for twelve months. Although, the doctor was punished, the

court showed some signs of leniency towards euthanasia. The Dutch Society for Voluntary

Euthanasia was also formed in the same year.

The next major case was the Alkmaar case in 1984, where the Supreme Court for the first time

acquitted the doctor in a case of active euthanasia. The doctor herein administered the patient

with a lethal dose taking away his life. The court based its decision on two points, first one that

there has to be an observance of principle of autonomy of patient in deciding as to whether they

want to continue to live or end their lives and the Dutch society has tendency to follow this

principle which is manifest in Article 293 of the penal code which clearly says that if a person

kills other in the explicit demand of the former then that is not murder and secondly it accepted

the exception of necessity as laid down in Article 293 of the Penal Code which clearly states that

if a person kills other in the explicit demand of the former then that is not murder and secondly it

accepted the exception of necessity as laid down in Article 40 of the penal code. The court said

that if the doctor has carefully balanced the conflicting interests and duties as per the

professional ethics and there is a clear absence of material illegality then a doctor should not be

held liable for active euthanasia on the explicit demand of the patient.0

In 1984, the Royal Dutch Medical Association laid down detailed guidelines for the medical

practitioners to practice euthanasia. The declaration clearly said that the guidelines were not for

0
District Court, Leeuwarden, 21 February 1973, N..J. 1973, No. 183.
0
Scholten Hans-Joseph, ‘’Justification of Active Euthanasia’’[1986] MED & L 169.

61
ethical purposes, but a practical guide. At the same time, it also that euthanasia should be kept as

the last resort, to be practiced after all the available options had been exhausted and there was

nothing left to be done medically.0 The guidelines if followed would immune the doctors from

any legal action against them. These guidelines are:

a) The request for euthanasia should be voluntary and free from any external pressure. The

doctor should talk personally with the patient to verify the voluntary element.

b) The request should be well considered and not in wake of emotions. The patient should

consider all the adjoining circumstances like the economic conditions, hoped of his recovery

and the chances of medical advancement that could save his life. The request must be

persistent over a period of time and not a single request would suffice.

c) The pain and suffering should be unbearable and unacceptable, beyond the normal tolerance

of the patient.

d) The doctor must consult the request with at least one more doctor and only after taking.

e) The courts accepted these guidelines as the standard of conduct for the doctors and

adjudicated on the basis of same.

The required legislative change came 2002 in the form of the termination of life on request and

assisted suicide (Review Procedure) Act, which legalized the active euthanasia in Netherlands,

making it the first nation in the world to do so. The Act included all the guidelines laid down by

the medical society in 1984 and along with those, added some extra checks in form of procedural

guidelines like reporting every case to the municipal officer in confirmation with Cremation Act

and waiting for the permission of the regional euthanasia committee for issuing the death

certificate and closing the case. This Act has integrated the concept of patient autonomy in the

medical care and has kept the decision making as a community matter with the societal
0
Lagerwey Walter, Guidelines for Euthanasia, [1987] 3 ISSUES L & MED 429 .

62
conceptions being given a due consideration in the private life and decision making of the

people.0

4.1.3 Euthanasia in Belgium

Belgium introduced an Act in 2002 to legalize active euthanasia. According to the Belgian Act

on Euthanasia, 2002, Section 2 for the purpose of this Act, euthanasia is defined as intentionally

terminating life of someone other than that the person concerned, at the latter’s request.

The Act says that a doctor commits no offence if he performed euthanasia under the following

conditions which are as follows;

a) The patient has attained the age of majority and is legally competent and makes the request

in state of consciousness.

b) The request is free from external pressure, persistent, well considered and voluntary.

c) The patient is suffering from some incurable disease and unbearable pain, physically or

mentally

The doctor before conducting the act must talk to the patient or relatives personally discussing in

details his medical condition and ensuring that there is no chances of recovering and no

alternative medical option left to alleviate the pain, after that he is required to discuss the case

with at least one more physician and the nursing staff who has been taking care of the patients0

Belgian law is considered to be one of the most lenient laws with respect to euthanasia. The

parliament broadened the scope of law to include even the minors under its ambit, and now after

the 2014 amendment, even minors can ask for a lethal dose to be administered to them to end

their lives, with the precondition that the parents should agree to the decision of the minor.

0
Pridfeon J Lucy, ‘’Euthanasia Legislation in the European Union: Is a universal law possible?’’ [2006] HANSE LR.
0
Ibid.

63
4.1.4 Euthanasia in Switzerland

Article 114 of the Swiss Criminal Code prohibits euthanasia, although the crime has a lesser

sentence than other acts deemed homicide. According to Article 114, it provides that an

individual who kills a person for compassionate reasons on the basis of that person’s serious

request will be fined or sentence to maximum term of imprisonment of three years. Also article

115 states that someone who for selfish reasons incite someone to commit suicide or assist a

suicide, will be fined or sentence to a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. Thus it is

implicit that assisted suicide is permitted if the person assisting the suicide does so for unselfish

reasons.

Since article 115 does not explicitly regulate assisted suicide for unselfish reasons, the Penal

code does not require that a physician be the person to assist a suicide, nor does it require the

involvement of any physician or whatsoever, which is a significant departure from legislation in

other countries where assisted suicide is permitted. 0 Nonetheless, at least one region has

approved by referendum, legislation to regulate the provision of assisted suicide in hospitals and

other “socio-medical establishments”0

Assisted suicide is also not limited to those with a terminal illness or to Swiss residents.

Switzerland has become a home for foreigners, predominantly Europeans, seeking assistance in

committing suicide.0 For instance, Nan Maitland, a 84 year old British advocate for assisted

0
Swiss Criminal Code, RS 331.0; Christain Schwarzenegger & Sarah J. Summers, “Criminal Law and Assisted
Suicide in Switzerland, Submission to the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally’’ (III Bill,
House of Lords, Zurich, 3 February 2005).<https://www.ius.uzh.ch> Accessed 9 March 2022.
0
‘’Canton of Vaud: Assisted Suicide’’ (European Institute of Bioethics, 7 January 2013)
<https://www.ieb-eib.org/fr/loi/fin-de-vie/euthanasie-et-suicide-assiste/canton-de-vaud-assistance-au-suicide-
337.html> Accessed 17 January 2022.
0
Imoges Foulkes, “Switzerland Plans New Controls on Assisted Suicide” (The BBC, 2 July 2010)
<https://www.bbc.com/news/10461894#:~:text=Plans%20to%20regulate,practice%20to%20the%20terminally
%20ill.> Accessed 17 January 2022.

64
suicide, went to a Swiss clinic to receive assistance in committing suicide. 0 Also Canadian

Kathleen Carter went to Switzerland to end her life. She was suffering from spinal stenosis, it

was painful not fatal. 0

In January 2011, the European Court of Human Rights held no violation of the European

Convention on Human Rights protections of private life occurred when a Swiss man was unable

to obtain lethal substance because it had been unsuccessful in getting a psychiatrist to prescribe a

lethal dose for him. He had also unsuccessfully sought the permission from the federal and the

authorities. He had appealed those decisions in the Swiss Court before turning to the European

Court. The court recognized the right to end his own life as contained under section 8 of the

Convention, but concluded that the state has no obligation to assist someone to access such a

drug without prescription. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights refused

to hear an appeal.0

4.2 LEGAL STATUS IN NIGERIA

In determining the position of the Nigerian Statute on the practice of euthanasia, certain

provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigerian Criminal Code

and the Nigeria Penal Code, applicable in the southern and northern Nigeria respectively, the

Code of Medical Ethics alongside a proposed draft bill on euthanasia.

4.2.1 The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria provides for the supremacy of the provisions shall

be regarded null and void. From the provision of section one of the 1999 Constitution, as

0
“Right-to-die activist Nan Maitland ‘Died with Dignity” {The BBC News, 4 April 2011)
<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12959664> Accessed 17 June 2022.
0
Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015, 6 February 2015.
0
European Court of Human Rights News, “Judgement Haas v. Switzerland, refusal to deliver lethal drug without
prescription: no violation of article 3, July 2011.

65
amended, it is deduced that the 1999 Constitution is the most supreme legal provision and its

provision and laws are the highest authority in the legal scene in Nigeria. As provided, where any

other law is inconsistent with the constitution, the other law(s) shall be void to the extent of that

inconsistency0

Every person is regarded to have inalienable fundamental human rights. These rights are inherent

in every single human being and should be protected and promoted strongly by the government

of a particular state. In fact, the promotion and protection of the human rights of the people in a

country has become the bedrock of the principle of the rule of law and democracy. As such, any

state or country that claims to practice the rule of law and democracy must ensure that the human

rights of her citizen are not trampled upon by anyone and adequately defended.

Having stated the above, it is important to state that Nigeria as a country has provided for the

protection and promotion of the fundamental human rights of her citizens, as provided for in

chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. This chapter, elaborates the provisions relating to the

recognition and protection of basic fundamental human rights, according to Augustine Alegele

SAN, former National President, Nigerian Bar Association, “Perhaps the greatest gift to mankind

as far as the law is concerned is the evolution of the fundamental human right as inalienable

right’’0

Thus, it is safe to conclude that Nigeria is one nation that has respect for fundamental human

rights of her citizens through the provision of her Constitution, her highest governing law.

Section 1(1) and (3), The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Chapter C 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
0

Alegeh Augustine, ‘Law and Natural Development’(Annual Justice Idigbe Memorial Lecture, University of
0

Benin, 2016).

66
Subsequently, a fundamental human right provided for the citizen and anyone residing in Nigeria

by the state that everyone has a right to life as in Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution 0. The

provision clearly state that everyone has the right to live and must not be deprived intentionally

of it except it is as a result of a crime which he or she has been found guilty and sentenced for in

a court of law in Nigeria. Its further states in Section 33(2) that a person would not be regarded

to have been deprived of his life if his death is as a result of defending another from unlawful

violence or defense of property0 effecting a lawful arrest or preventing the escape of a person

lawfully detained0, and suppressing riot, insurrection or mutiny0.

Although the term ‘euthanasia’ is not used in the provision, the description of when it would be

legal to deprive a person intentionally of his life shows quite clearly that the law would not avail

anyone who carries any intentionally deprivation or taking of a life outside the circumstances

provided for in Section 33. Thus, it can be inferred that a person or medical practitioner who

causes the death of another, who is terminally ill and in pain, with the intention of bringing the

latter out of pain shall be held guilty of murder. Although it does not differentiate between a

death that occurs with the assistant physician or a request emanating from a patient or the state of

the patient’s health, it can be implied that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria subtly prohibit the

practice of euthanasia and regards euthanasia as murder.0

This provision is in line with other international human rights instruments such as the Universal

Declaration of Human Right 1948, the American convention on Human Rights, the European

0
CAP. C23, LFN 2004.
0
Section33(2)(a) of 1999 Constitution, Chapter C 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
0
Section33(2)(b) of 1999 Constitution, Chapter C 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
0
Section 33(2)(c) of 1999 Constitution, Chapter C 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
0
Oluyemisi Bambgose, ‘’Euthanasia: Another Face Murder’’ [2004] 48 International Journal of Offender Theraphy
and Comparative Criminology 111.

67
Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the African

Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, all of which provide for and guarantee right to life.

Overtime, it has been agreed that the provision of Section 33 of the Nigerian Constitution should

in no case be read in isolation and rather should be alongside section 34 and section 35. This is

based on the mindset of Nigeria’s apex court. The Nigeria Supreme Court has held in several

cases that the interpretation of the Constitution must be done in a broad and literal manner,

especially when they relate to fundamental human right provisions. 0 Among such cases is the

case of Nafiu Rabiu v State0, where the appellant (respondent in the court of Appeal) dissatisfied

with the decision given by the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court on the substantial

question of law, that under the provision of Section 220 and 222 of the constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, the Federal High Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal against the order of acquitted entered in his favor by the High Court, having

regard to the meaning of the term “decision” as defined in Section 277 of the constitution. He

contended that the Federal Court of Appeal was wrong in law, to have entertained the appeal at

all whereas it should have dismissed it.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and it was held that:

In interpreting the constitution, mere technical rules of

interpretation are to some extent inadmissible in a way so as to
defeat the principles of government enshrined in the
constitution. Where the question is whether the constitution has
used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense, the
court should always lean where the justice of the case so
demands to the broader interpretation unless there is something
in the context or in the rest of the constitution to indicate that
0
Bright Oniha and Osato Mabel, “Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide As Basic Constitutional Rights Under the 1999
Constutution of Nigeria
<https://www.ajol.info/index.php./naujilj/article/viewFile/.../125786> Accessed 22 February 2022.
0
(1981) 2 NCLR 293.

68
 the narrower interpretation will best carry out its objective and
purpose.0
A similar decision was held in the case of Attorney General of Bendel v. Attorney General of the

Federation. 0

Following these decisions, it is therefore necessary that Section 33 of the constitution is not

considered in isolation, rather with section 34(1) and 35.

Section 34(1)0 provides that

34 (1) Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly –

(a) no person shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment;

(b) no person shall be held in slavery or servitude; and

(c) no person shall be required to perform forced of compulsory labour.

Subsequently, section 35 (1) provides that every person has a right to personal liberty and should

not be deprived of such liberty except in certain circumstances such as execution of the sentence

or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence which he has been found guilty.

Examining the provision of sections 34 and 35 of the Constitution, it is quite apparent that every

human being is regarded to be entitled to self-dignity and personal liberty, which cannot be taken

away except in the circumstances highlighted in the constitution. Notably, none of the

highlighted circumstances includes taking away a person’s right to personal liberty and self-

dignity at the instance of euthanasia. This then births the question of when a person’s right to life

is in conflict with his right to self -dignity and personal liberty, which should prevail.

0
Ibid.
0
(1982) 3 NCLR 166.
0
1999 Constitution, CAP. C23, LFN 2004.

69
A position was maintained in the notable case of Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary

Tribunal v. Dr. John Emewulu N. Okonkwo 0, where the court held that a patient has a right to

determine what happens with his or her body.0

In the case, the patient whose name was Mrs. Martha Okorie, who was a 29 years old housewife,

developed complications after the birth of her child and required blood transfusion. She however

refused the transfusion of blood on the ground that she belonged to the Jehovah Witnesses

religious group, even after an explanation of what the repercussions of her action would be. She

was discharged from the hospital and moved to another hospital by her husband where she was

admitted by the defendant. There, she gave a consent note which bore the following words

according to the medical directives;

I, Martha K. Okorie, direct that no blood transfusions be given

me, even though physicians deem such as vital to my health or my
life, I accept non-blood expanders such as Dextrin, saline or
Ringer’s solution hetastarch, I am 29 years old and execute this
document of my own initiative. It accords with my rights as a
patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah’s witnesses. The bible
commands: keep abstaining from blood (Acts 15:28, 29). This is
and has been my religious stand for 6 years. I direct that I be
given no blood transfusion, I accept any added risk this may
bring. I release doctors, anesthesiologists, hospitals and their
personnel from responsibility for any untoward results caused by
my refusal despite their competent care. In the event that I lose
consciousness, I authorize either witness below to see that my
decision is (up) held.0

0
(2001) 6 NWLR (pt 710)2, (2001) All NLR 305.
0
Bright Oniha And Osato Mabel “Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide As Basic Constitutional Rights Under the 1999
Constitution of (Nigeria law Guru)
https://www.nigerianlawguru.com/articles/human%20rights%20law/EUTHANASIA%20AND%20ASSISTED
%20SUICIDE.pdf> Accessed 22 November 2022
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/naujilj/aeticle/viewfile/.../125786 > accessed 16th February 2022.
0
Anthony O. Nwafor, ‘Comparative Perspective on Euthanasia in Nigeria and Ethiopia’ [2010] 18 African Journal of
International and Comparative Law 184.

70
The husband also wrote a similarly worded directive addressed to the hospital instructing that no

blood transfusion be administered to his wife and absolved the hospital from liability for any

adverse consequence. Her wishes and her husband’s instruction were respected by the hospital,

after they explained the adverse effect of their decision. The patient died five days after and the

defendant was arraigned before the Medical and Dental Practitioners Tribunal for negligence and

acting against medical ethics. He was convicted and suspended from practice for six months by

the Tribunal but on appeal to the court of appeal, the judgement of the Tribunal was dismissed.

Subsequently at the Supreme Court, the Tribunal’s appeal was dismissed and it was stated by

Ayoola JSC, that patient’s autonomy to liberty, privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and

religion can only be taken away:

Where they impinge on the right of others or where they put the
welfare of the society or public health in jeopardy. The sum total
of the rights of privacy and of freedom of thought, conscience or
religion which an individual has… is that an individual should be
left alone to choose a course for his life, unless a clear and
compelling overriding state interest justifies the contrary.0

In the same case, Achike, JSC also stated:

It was at best omission to do something by a caring medical officer

in respect of complex matter which involved respecting personal
decision-albeit, of religious beliefs- of a patient in the face of the
patient’s obduracy in being treated. I was relieved that I found
nothing delinquent, not to mention infamous, about the conduct of
the respondent throughout the circumstance of the case.0

4.2.2 Criminal and Penal Code

Another important statutory law to examine is the Criminal Code and the Penal Code, admissible

in the southern and northern region respectively. The term ‘Euthanasia’ was not used by any of

0
Ibid.
0
Ibid.

71
the two laws governing the criminal laws in Nigeria. They however provide for murder or

manslaughter depending on the circumstance of the case 0 and do not differentiate between a

killing that is carried out with the assistance of a physician or a request emanating from a patient

or the patient’s health.0 These laws have over time being used by authors as interference to what

would apply in an occurrence for euthanasia.0

Section 299 provides that “consent by a person to the causing of his own death does not affect

the criminal responsibility of any person by whom such death is caused”. This can be interpreted

to mean that if person agrees to be killed by another, the latter would be guilty and would not be

exonerated based on the consent given by the former. This was illustrated in Nigerian case of

State v Okezi0 where the accused person who was a native doctor was invited by the deceased, a

hunter, to prepare some medicine and charms so that he would be a stronger hunter and kill lots

of animals. The accused had previously prepared such a charm for the deceased. On this

occasion, to yet the efficacy of the charms prepared, the deceased produced his own gun and

asked the accused to fire gun at him {the deceased) at a very close range. The trial court rejected

the plea that the deceased consented to the firing of gun and the accused was convicted of

murder. Therefore, the consent of the victim is irrelevant.

It can be inferred that this provision is applicable to the practice of Euthanasia and physician

assisted suicide in Nigeria, as any medical practitioner or person who kills terminally ill patient

would be held liable, even though such act was carried out based on the request of the ill patient.

Therefore, voluntary euthanasia is prohibited by law in Nigeria.

0
Section 315 Criminal Code.
0
Obi M.C, ‘A Critical Appraisal of Euthanasia Under Nigeria Laws’ [2014] 4 Nnamdi Azikwe University
Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence 79.
0
Ibid.
0
2 ESCLR 419.

72
Furthermore, section 3080 provides that any person who causes the death of another, directly or

indirectly, by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person. This provision of

the Criminal Code can be said to cover both the active and passive form of euthanasia, as

examined in the foremost part of this discourse. This position is further strengthened by section

3110 which goes further to state that:

a person who does any act or makes any omission which hastens
the death of another person who, when the act is done or the
omission is made, is laboring under some disorder or disease
arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other
person.
Thus, it can be held that passive and active euthanasia is prohibited by the Nigerian law.

Involuntary euthanasia could be said to have been made illegal by virtue of Section 310 of the

Criminal Code which provides that “a person who, by threat or intimidation or by deceit, causes

another person to do an act or make an omission which results in the death of that other person,

is deemed to have killed him”.

Therefore, it would be illegal to compel a terminally ill patient to opt for euthanasia. Any

medical practitioner or relative that compels, threatens or cajoles such terminally ill patient shall

be held liable for the death of such patient. This is illustrated in the case of R v. Nwaoke 0 where

the trial judge applied section 310 and found the accused guilty of manslaughter. The accused

had pointed a juju called “Onye Uku” at the deceased who owed him money. He stated that

“since you refuse to pay me my money that juju will kill you since you refused to pay me my

money, you shall no more eat or drink”. The accused afterwards left the juju at the deceased’s

house and although threw as no evidence that it was, she who stopped eating or drinking, the

0
Criminal Code, Cap. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
0
Ibid.
0
(1939) 5 W.A.C.A 120.

73
deceased became very depressed and six day later went to hang herself on a high tree. Drawing

from this case, it can be implied that anyone who threatens or cajoles a person to opt for the

option of euthanasia would be held guilty and liable.

As provided in section 315 of Criminal Code, “any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty

of an offence which is murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances of the case”. This

section goes on to state the crime which a person who acts contrary to the highlighted provisions

would be guilty of; murder or manslaughter, as determined by the court and the circumstances of

the case. Irrespective of the reason for causing the death of another, such person would be guilty

of murder or manslaughter under the Nigerian criminal law. Therefore, applying this euthanasia,

the practice could be held unlawful and as murder or manslaughter. The provisions show that

none of the categorized classification of euthanasia is legalized in Nigeria.0

Subsequently, in Section 3260, it is provided that anyone who persuades, counsels or assists a

person to commit suicide would be held guilty and liable to imprisonment for life.

Applying section 326 alongside section 3110, it can be deduced that the practice of aid-dying,

active and assisted euthanasia is criminalized in Nigeria. And as provided in Section 327 0, a

person is not allowed to kill him or herself, as anyone who attempts such would be guilty of a

misdemeanor. The prohibition makes it quite obvious that, though an individual has a right to

self-autonomy and self-determination, such individual does not have a right to own life. Thereby

protect the right to life of a person provided for in Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria.

0
Kolade Faseyi, ‘The Right to Die: The place of Religion, Ethics and the Law’ [2017] 8 NAUJILJ 105.
0
Criminal Code, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
0
Ibid.
0
Ibid.

74
From all the above examined laws, it is trite law that the practice and act of euthanasia is

expressly prohibited in Nigeria.

The Penal Code, which is applicable to the Northern part in Nigeria, also provides for culpable

homicide (also known as murder), and makes it punishable by death. Section 220 of the Penal

Code0 provides that

Whoever causes death- (a) by doing an act with the intention of causing death or such bodily

injury as is likely to cause death; or (b) by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by

such act to cause death; or (c) by doing a rash or negligent act, commits the offence of culpable

homicide.

It goes on to Section 2210 to state circumstances where culpable homicide would be punishable

by death, the first being, “if the act by which led the death is done with the intention of causing

death” and the other is “if the doer of the act knew or had reason to know that death would be

probable and not only a likely consequence of the act or of any bodily injury which the act was

intended to cause”.

The only exception the Penal Code gives are in section 222 0 where it states that “culpable

homicide is not punishable with death if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control

by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or

causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident”. Therefore, it does not exempt a

killing or death carried out in other to relieve a person in physical pain or suffering. Thus,

euthanasia is prohibited also by the Penal Code and such cannot be practiced in the Northern part

of Nigeria.

0
CAP 53 LFN Abuja.
0
Penal Code, CAP 53 LFN Abuja.
0
Penal Code, CAP 53 LFN Abuja.

75
It is quite evident that both provisions on murder and killings criminalizes the act of euthanasia

in Nigeria and anyone who carries out such practice shall be held guilty, irrespective of the

deceased giving consent to his name.

4.2.3 Code of Medical Ethics

Nigeria's position on euthanasia is not only prohibited by the constitution and criminal laws, but

also by the Code of Medical Ethics. In particular, Rule 68 of the Nigerian Code of Medical

Ethics expressly prohibits the practice of euthanasia by medical practitioners in Nigeria. It

provided that:

One of the cardinal points in the Physician’s Oath is the

preservation of life and therefore, the act of mercy killing or
helping a patient to commit suicide runs contradictory and
antithetical. A doctor should not terminate life whether the patient
is in sound health or is terminally ill.
A practitioner shall adjudge to be in breach of the ethical code of
practice if found to have encouraged or participated in any of the
following acts:
(a) Termination of a patient’s life by the administration of drugs, even at
the patient’s explicit request.
(b) Prescribing or supplying drugs with the explicit intention of enabling
the patient to end his or her life
(c) Termination of a patient’s life through the administration of drugs
with or without the patient’s explicit request thinking same to be in
the interest of the patient0

According to the above provision, a medical practitioner who performs the practice or act of

euthanasia would be considered to have violated the Nigerian medical practitioners' ethical

code, and thus would be penalized and his or her license would most likely be revoked.

0
Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria, Rule 68.

76
4.2.4 Judicial Response

Bright Eraze Oniha and Mabel Osato Oniha 0 opined that the right to die or euthanasia exist in

Nigeria with constitutional and judicial backing. Thus section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution

cannot be read in isolation. But be read together with section 34 and section 35(1) which

boarders on the quality of human life and therefore ancillary to section 33(1) of the

Constitution.

Section 34 provides:

(1) Every individual is entitled to respect the dignity of his

person, and accordingly
(a) No person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment 0

By the provisions of section 35(1) every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no

person shall be deprived of such liberty except in cases spelt out therein and in accordance

with the procedure permitted by law. According to this section, the corresponding right of a

terminally ill patient is his basic right to human dignity and right to personal liberty cannot be

ignored simply because his life is guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to life cannot in

any way include being in permanent and hopeless vegetative state.

This study shows that the impression created by the Criminal Code and Penal Code that all

forms of euthanasia are illegal can no longer be sustained. The major important finding shows

that the Supreme Court, by its decision in John Okonkwo’s case has approved passive

euthanasia though not expressly, but by implication as legal.

0
Supra.
0
Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Chapter C23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

77
 According to the case of Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Dr John

Emewulu Nicholas Okonkwo0, the supreme court in its wisdom legalized a level of euthanasia

born out of its interpretation of Section 38(1) of the Nigeria Constitution0

Looking at the provisions of the Criminal Code as earlier discussed, it appears euthanasia is

prohibited. However, the Supreme Court, as part of its judicial activism, created a limitation to

the criminalization of a person’s ‘right to die’ where it explained that where death emanates

from choice of medical treatment by a competent adult, in exercise of his or her right to

religion, thought a conscience, no criminal liability shall arise. It should be noted that

constitutional provisions as they relate to Fundamental Human Rights must be read broadly

and together and not disjointedly. The class of euthanasia can be called ‘Euthanasia by

Rejection of Medical Treatment’

4.2.5 A Proposed Draft Bill

Background to the Bill

This Bill seeks to repeal section 326 and section 327 of the Criminal Code as well as section

220-221 of the Penal Code and Rule 68 of the Code of Medical Ethics which prohibits

euthanasia in order to legalize and regulate euthanasia under Nigerian Law.

The reasons for the legalization of euthanasia are; the realization of individual autonomy,

reduction of needless pain and suffering, and providing psychological reassurance to dying

patients.

This Bill sets out to provide guidelines for the legislative arm of government, and regulate access

specifically to voluntary assisted dying, to establish the Committee Review Board.

0
(2001) JELR 33516 (SC).
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended in 2011) Cap. C. 192 Laws of the Federation of
0

Nigeria 2004.

78
This bill seeks to provide a regulatory framework for medical practitioners as to the situations

when euthanasia should be permitted. It stipulates eligibility criteria as to euthanasia. The bill

also provides for different stages of the procedure and relevant documentation.

This proposed Bill will look at selected aspects, including the proposed eligibility criteria for

access to voluntary euthanasia, the application and review process, the role of the Committee

Review Board, and the proposed offences under the Bill.

Eligibility Criteria

The Bill should set out the eligibility criteria for those wishing to access euthanasia. In order to

qualify a person must:

a) be 18 years and above;

b) be a Nigerian citizen

c) have decision-making capacity to consent in relation to voluntary assisted dying;

d) be diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is incurable, advanced,

progressive and will cause death, and is expected to cause death within, less than 12

months; and

e) be experiencing suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers

intolerable.

A person is not eligible for access to voluntary euthanasia if they have a mental illness or if they

have a disability. Those with mental illness and or disability, however, are not precluded from

taking part if they also fulfill the eligibility criteria above

A person must make the request for access to voluntary assisted dying. The Bill determines that

no one can request voluntary assisted dying or someone else’s behalf. This means that a medical

79
treatment decision-maker cannot make the decision. It is also not possible for a person to make a

statement to request voluntary assisted dying in an advance care directive.

Application and Review Process

First Request

This Bill stipulates that medical practitioner must not initiate a discussion about voluntary

euthanasia nor suggest it to a patient. A person must make a clear and unambiguous request to a

medical practitioner to access voluntary assisted dying, a request which may be withdraw at any

time. Upon receiving a request, a medical practitioner must determine and inform the person

whether they will accept or refuse the request within seven days. Medical practitioners are not

required to take part in the process and the bill makes provision for those health practitioners

who wish to conscientiously object to voluntary assisted dying.

Assessment

If the heath practitioner does not object to taking part, then that person becomes the coordinating

medical practitioner. The coordinating medical practitioner must conduct a first assessment of

the patient and determine whether the person meets all of the eligibility criteria. Only a

coordinating medical practitioner who has completed approved assessment training may

commence the first assessment. If the coordinating medical practitioner assesses the person as

eligible, they must refer the person to another medical practitioner known as the consulting

medical practitioner for a further independent assessment.

80
Both the coordinating and consulting medical practitioners must be fellows of a specialist

medical college or be registered medical practitioners. The bill also requires that either the

coordinating or consulting medical practitioner must have at least five years of experience post-

fellowship and has at least one of the practitioners must have relevant expertise and experience

in the person’s disease, illness or medical condition.

The coordinating medical practitioner must inform the person about

a) the diagnosis and prognosis;

b) the available treatment options and likely outcomes;

c) the palliative care options and their likely outcomes;

d) the potential risks of taking a poison-controlled substance under the bill;

e) that the expected outcome of taking the poison or controlled substance is death; and

f) that the person may withdraw from the process at any time.

Both practitioners must be satisfied that the person understands the information, also that they

are acting voluntarily and without coercion, and that their request is enduring. Both practitioners

must notify the Committee Review Board of the outcome of their assessments within seven days

of completing them.

Written Declaration

If the consulting medical practitioner also assesses the person as eligible, the person make take a

written declaration, which will serve as a formal record of the voluntary and enduring nature of

the person’s request to access voluntary euthanasia. The written declaration will need to be

witnessed by two people who are not involved in providing health services or professional care

81
services to the person and who would not materially benefit from the person’s death. The written

declaration must be signed in the presence of the coordinating medical practitioner.

Final Request

Once a person has completed their written declaration, they may make their final request. The

final request should only be made at least nine days after the day on which the first request was

made. The only exception to this requirement is if the coordinating medical practitioner is of the

view that the person would die before the expiry of the specified time period. In all instances, a

final request cannot be made on the same day that the second assessment is completed.

As an additional requirement to the bill, the committee review board must also appoint a person

who would to monitor the voluntary assisted dying substance. The person will be responsible for

returning the voluntary assisted dying substance if it is not used and will also be a point of

contact for the Committee Review Board.

Final Review and Permits

Following the final request, the coordinating medical practitioner must undertake a final review

to complete the process and provide copies of all forms and assessments to the Board within

seven days of their completion. If the request and the assessment process has been complied

with, the medical practitioner may apply to the Secretary of the Department of Health Services

for a permit. There are two forms of permit: a self-administration permit and a practitioner

administration permit. The Secretary may issue a permit if satisfied that the request and

82
assessment process has been complied with. The permit will only authorize administration

through the method specified.

If the person is physically able to self-administer the voluntary assisted dying substance, the

coordinating medical practitioner must apply for self-administration permit. Once the

coordinating medical practitioner has obtained a self- administration permit, they may prescribe

the voluntary assisted dying substance, which the person can obtain from the pharmacist and

then store in a locked box. If a person is not physically capable of self- administering or

digesting the prescribed substance, the coordinating medical practitioner may apply for a

practitioner administration permit.

If the coordinating medical practitioner obtains a self-administration permit and the person

subsequently loses the physical capacity to self- administer or digest prescribed substance, the

coordinating medical practitioner will need to apply for a practitioner administration permit. The

person will need to return to their coordinating medical practitioner if they wish to proceed.

Before applying for this permit, the coordinating medical practitioner will need to destroy any

prescription under the relevant self-administration permit which has not been filed, and be

satisfied that any previously prescribed substance or prescription has been returned. The

coordinating medical practitioner may only administer the voluntary assisted dying substance

after a request from the person, and must do so in the presence of a witness who is independent

of the coordinating medical practitioner.

Notification of Cause of Death

After a person has died, the medical practitioner who was responsible for the person’s medical

care, or who examines the body of the deceased person, must notify the registrar of births, deaths

marriages if they are aware the person was the subject of a voluntary assisted dying permit. They

83
must also stipulate that the person has been prescribed the voluntary assisted dying substance,

and the disease, illness or medical condition that was the grounds for the person to access

voluntary assisted dying. This information is provided to the Committee Review Board.

Any unused prescribed substance that has not been self-administered by the person must be

returned to the dispensing pharmacist by the contact person within one month of the notification

of the person’s death. The pharmacist will report the return of the substance of the Committee

Review Board.

Additionally, the Bill amends the births, deaths and marriages Act to require that the disease,

illness or medical condition be recorded as the cause of death in the register, not euthanasia.

Euthanasia should not be a ‘reportable death’ under the bill.

Committee Review Board

The Committee Review Board, which is responsible for monitoring voluntary assisted dying

activity under the legislation. The Board will consist of a chairperson, and possibly a Deputy

Chairperson, both of whom are appointed by the minister of health. Members are appointed to

the committee if the minister is satisfied that the person has the appropriate knowledge and skills

to perform all of the duties and functions of a member of the Board.

Functions of the Committee Review Board

The Board holds several functions which include to:

a. monitor matter relating to voluntary euthanasia;

b. review the exercise of any function or power under the Act;

c. provide reports to the National Assembly on the operation of the Act and any

recommendations for the improvement of voluntary euthanasia;

84
d. promote compliance with the requirements of the Act by the provision of information respect

of voluntary euthanasia to registered health practitioners and members of the community;

e. refer any issue identified by the Board in relation to voluntary euthanasia that is relevant to

either the Commissioner of police, the Registrar, the Secretary, the State or the Health

Practitioner Regulation Agency;

f. promote continuous improvement in the quality and safety of voluntary euthanasia to those

who exercise any function or power under the Act;

g. conduct analysis of, and carry out research in relation to, information or forms given to the

Board in accordance with the Act;

h. provide information about voluntary euthanasia , and other matters identified by the Board in

accordance with the Act;

i. collect, use and disclose forms and information provided in accordance with Act for the

purposes of carrying out a function under the Act;

j. consult and engage with the community, relevant groups or organizations, government

departments and agencies, and registered health practitioners who provide voluntary assisted

dying services, in relation to voluntary assisted dying;

k. provide advice to the minister or the secretary in relation to the operation of the Act; and

l. provide reports to the minister or the secretary, in respect of any matter relevant to the

functions of the Board as requested.

The Board’s role will include receiving reporting forms and reviewing each request and the

assessment to access voluntary euthanasia. The coordinating medical practitioner, the consulting

medical practitioner, dispensing pharmacist, the Department of Health and Human Services and

85
the Registrar of Birth, Deaths and Marriages will all provide separate information to the Board at

several points throughout the process.

The Board must provide an annual report to the National Assembly and must make six-monthly

reports in the first two years. If the Board identifies wrongdoing, it will be required to refer the

matter to the relevant body, such as the Commissioner of Police, the Registrar, the secretary, the

state or the health practitioner Regulation Agency.

Offences
Protection from both criminal and civil liability is afforded to those who act in accordance with

the bill. However, the bill includes a number of specific offences that relate to the voluntary

euthanasia framework.

The Bill creates an offence for a coordinating medical practitioner to knowingly administer a

voluntary assisted dying substance other than in accordance with practitioner administration

permit if they intend to cause death; the recommended penalty is life imprisonment. Similarly,

the Bill creates an offence for anyone than the person themselves to knowingly administer a

voluntary assisted dying substance dispensed under self-administration permit; the recommended

penalty is also life imprisonment.

The Bill also creates offences of inducing another person to request voluntary euthanasia, or of

inducing another person to self-administer a voluntary assisted dying substance. Under the Bill,

it will also be an offence to falsify forms or record or make false statements or reports that is

required under the Bill. In all these cases, the recommended penalty is maximum of five years.

Additionally, should a contact person fail to return any unused or remaining prescribed voluntary

assisted dying substance within one month after death of a person who is the subject of a self-

administration permit; the recommended penalty is imprisonment for twelve months.

86
 CHAPTER FIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

After conducting a critical research on euthanasia in Nigeria, the following recommendations

proposed by the researcher are:

5.1.1 There should be an awareness of the concept of euthanasia in Nigeria

There is a need to make people familiar with the concept of euthanasia. The popular negative

notion associated with euthanasia that it is deliberate killing and is equal to murder needs to be

changed. People are afraid that legalizing euthanasia would give endless power and discretion to

take lives which in reality is not the situation. Various measures like awareness campaigns,

seminars and advertisements need to be adopted to make people understand what euthanasia

really is and how it is meant to operated. Also, the nation’s research establishment should define

and implement priorities for strengthening the knowledge base for end-of-life care

5.1.2 Harmony between the law and medical ethics in Nigeria

There is need for harmony between law and medical ethics in Nigeria, to obviate medical

conundrums. The Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria needs to work with other medical

professional bodies and update the country’s code of medical ethics. The Medical and Dental

Council of Nigeria should also liaise with the senate and House committees on health to draft

bills on euthanasia.

87
5.1.3 The urgent need for ethical training of doctors and the Hippocratic Oath should be

amended

There should be ethical training of the doctors to conduct euthanasia and the Hippocratic Oath

should be amended to allow the doctors to conduct euthanasia and removing the barriers of

professional ethics. At the same time, it should ensure that doctor should not abuse the power

and not unnecessarily hasten the patient’s death motivated by the personal benefits or the

pressure from the relatives.

5.1.4 The need for the creation of a specialized committee on euthanasia in order not to

abuse euthanasia law when created in Nigeria

What is to be seen is the overall utility of the law and its need in the society. Steps should be

taken to assure that the law is not used in the ways not desired. One of the biggest concerns while

passing euthanasia law is that relative in an attempt to inherit to the property early, may abuse

the law and take decisions which are not in the best interest of the patient. A committee should

be formulated to look into each and every case to assure that these factors do not motivate the

decision

5.1.5 Provision of health care at affordable prices

Government should make provisions for the better health care at more affordable prices so that

no patient is under financial pressure during his illness and he does not decide to be euthanized

just to save his family from financial burden.

5.1.6 There should be specific laws on euthanasia in Nigeria

There is an urgent need for Nigerian Government to enact specific law, guiding or governing the

euthanasia. The taciturnity of the Nigerian law on the subject has become overdue, hence the

need for a specific legislation on that aspect.

88
5.1.7 Health practitioners should show ultimate care and love to patients requesting for

euthanasia

It should be advised that the pleas of terminally ill patients, who sometimes request death, should

not be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia, but an anguished plea for help and

love. In view of this it is suggested that we should always show this people love and care, rather

than canvass for their death through euthanasia. Life is a precious gift from God, which is sacred

and should always be treated as such

5.1.8 There should be reform of existing Penal Laws creating exceptions on euthanasia

Also it is recommended that a comprehensive reform of existing penal laws be carried out aimed

at creating an exception to deserving cases for the exercise of a right to die by euthanasia

especially voluntary euthanasia. In addition to this, specific laws on euthanasia should be enacted

clearly spelling out gamut of euthanasia law in Nigeria and spelling out cases where the right to

die is permissible.

5.1. 9 People with fatal illness should receive reliable, skillful, and supportive care

Educating people about care at the end of life is a critical responsibility of physicians, hospitals,

support groups, public programs and media. Most patients and families need information not

only about diagnosis and prognosis but also about what support and what outcomes they should

reasonably be able to anticipate. For instance, they should not be allowed to believe that pain is

inevitable or that supportive care is incompatible with continuing efforts to diagnose and treat.

Also health care organizations and other relevant parties should adopt policies regarding

information, education, and assistance related to end-of-life decisions and services.

89
5.1.10 Physicians and other health professionals must commit themselves to improving care
for dying patients and use existing knowledge to prevent and relieve pain and other
symptoms.

Most patients depend on health care professionals to prevent and manage the varying physical

and psychological symptoms that accompany advanced illness. To meet their obligations to their

patients, practitioners must hold themselves and their colleagues responsible for using existing

knowledge and available interventions to assess, prevent and relieve physical and emotional

stress. Unrelieved pain and other symptoms are the most evident problems that practitioners can

readily avoid for the great majority of patients, but problems with communication, appropriate

regard for patient and family wishes, and timely referral of palliative care specialists or teams are

other areas in need of improvement. When good practice is hindered by organizational, financial,

or legal impediments, health professionals have the responsibility as individuals and members of

larger groups to advocate for system change.

5.1.11 Educators and other health professionals should initiate changes in undergraduate,
graduate and continuing education to ensure that practitioners have the relevant attitudes,
knowledge and skills to care for dying patients

Dying is too important a part of life to be left to one or two required lectures, to be considered

only in ethical and not clinical terms, or to be set aside on the grounds that medical educators are

already swamped with competing demands for time and resources. Every health professional

who deals directly with patients and families need a basic grounding in competent and

compassionate care for seriously ill and dying patients. For physicians and others to be held truly

accountable for their care of dying, educators must be held accountable for what they teach and

what they implicitly and explicitly honor as exemplary practice.

90
5.1.12 The proposed Bill created in this research work should be converted to a law

The summary of a proposed draft bill for euthanasia should be converted into a proper bill and

legislation which should be implemented.

5.2 CONCLUSION

For difficult issues like euthanasia, it is never easy to jump to any sound conclusion without

considering all the factors that affect the decision making. The research work has made an

attempt to cover all the major aspects of euthanasia and various elements like religion, ethics and

morality to know the concept in depth and decide whether it can be legalized in Nigeria or not

Morally it appears on the face that euthanasia is not permissible which can be equated with

murder and cannot be allowed. But when looked in detail, it appears that there is some scope of

legality. It is seen from the patient’s point of view and the compassionate angle; euthanasia looks

like a valid practice which may help people in avoiding unnecessary hardships by bringing a

painless end to their lives. The humanist approach to euthanasia suggests that it is in the best

interest of humanity to let people experience a painless end that is in their wish rather than

hopelessly suffering the burden of life without any pleasure and enjoyment.

After considering the religious aspect we conclude that though almost all religion preach the

sovereignty of God in the field of death and only God has the authority to decide the way and

time of exit of people, there are some religions especially the eastern ones which have a huge

following in Nigeria, which have a scope of allowing euthanasia as regards their belief and

ideologies. The majority religion has some practices which are similar to euthanasia and have

been followed since ages and then on the basis of same, it can be legalized in the present times

by bringing legislation.

91
The international trend also shows that the attitude towards euthanasia is changing. Many

countries have introduction legislations to legalize euthanasia and people are using the provisions

of the same to end their lives. International organizations also have started to approach this issue

with different angle now and have shown a lenient attitude towards it. It can be a signal that there

may soon be signed an international treaty to include the euthanasia in the Human Rights

The Nigeria legislative stand as of now is not euthanasia friendly. The scope of the law should be

expanded to fit the changing demands, a broader interpretation should be given to the ‘right to

die’ in the ‘right to life’. The scope of law should be expanded to fit to the changing social

demands; a broader interpretation should be given to the constitutional provision to right to life.

There is a need to respect the religious beliefs also and to give them the legislative recognition

by making euthanasia laws which will enable the followers of religions to perform such acts

which is allegedly equivalent to euthanasia.

In the researcher’s opinion it is the need of the hours to make a legislation to legalize euthanasia

in Nigeria also, but before doing that we have to look into many things. While looking at the

foreign legislation, we must appreciate the fact that majority of the nations which have legalized

euthanasia, had already decriminalized the attempt to suicide which is not the situation here, so a

simultaneous reconsideration into legality of culpability of attempt to suicide is also required.

Secondly, the socio-economic condition of this nation is much different than Nigeria; they are all

developed nations with huge economic resources with the help of which the state is able to

provide good medical and palliate care free cost or at a very reasonable price. But in Nigeria,

considering the e size of the population, it is not easy for government to take care of all the

patients as the economic resources also are not that much.

92
Thirdly, the societies in these countries are much more liberal than Nigeria society; countries like

Netherlands have been the front runner in expanding horizons of personal liberty by allowing

same sex marriages and their open attitude towards drugs. The societal setup is an important

consideration, Nigerian society perceives things in a more traditional way and is not that open to

such changes

Lastly, the researcher would like to conclude that the proposed bill is a well formulated bill and

covers all the important aspect of the issues. The parliament should after receiving the popular

public opinion proceed with the acceptance of the same and formulate them to legislation.

93
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

A. Kenny, The Ivory Tower (Oxford, Blackwell, 1985).

A. S.Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (7th edn, New York:

Oxford University Press, 1997) p.500.

Adaramola F., Basic Jurisprudence (3rd edn, Nigeria: Raymond Kunz Communications 2004)

68.

Algernon D. Black, ‘’Our Quest for Faith: Is Human Enough?’’ In Paul Kurtz, The Humanist

Alternative (Prometheus Publishers, 1973).

Chaliha J. & Le Joly E.,The Joy in Loving: A Guide to Daily Living (New Delhi: Viking Print,

1996) 174

David M. Walker, The Oxford Comparison of Law (Oxford Press,1980) 44.

Dennis J. Baker (ed), The Sanctity of Life and The Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press,

2013).

Dharmendar K. Nehra, Pradeep Kumar & Sheetel Nehra, ‘Suicide: Attitude and Prevention’ in

Amrita Yadava & NovRattan Sharma (eds), Euthanasia: An Understanding (Global Vision

Publishing House 2013) 61.

Dworkin Ronald, Life’s Dominion (First Vintage Books Ed. 1994) 194.

Granville Williams ‘The Morality of Voluntary Euthanasia” pg.311 1957.

H. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967) 69.

94
J. Fletcher, Morals and Medicine (Boston: Beacon, 1960) 183.

J. Rachels, The End of Life (Melbourne, OUP, 1986); P. Singer, Practical Ethics (2nd ed.,

Cambridge, CUP, 1993).

J. Stephens, A History of the Criminal Law of England (Macmilian Publishers, London 1883)

13.

Joseph V. Sullivan, Catholic Teaching on the Morality of Euthanasia (CreateSpace Independent

Publishing Platform, 2011).

LeBaron G Jr.. “The Ethics of Euthanasia” Quantonics, (1993-318 Educ. Res.2008).

Mark Dimmock & Andrew Fisher, Euthanasia, Ethics for A level (Part 3, Open Book Publishers

2017) 124.

Nedelsky J. Law’s Relation: A relational Theory of Self, Autonomy and Law (New York, NY:

Oxford University Press 2011) 58.

P. Devlin “Morals and the Criminal Law” in R. Dworkin (ed.) The philosophy of Law (Oxford

OUP, 1977)

Raanan Gillon, Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia, in Euthanasia and the right to death (A.B.

Downing ed.,1969).

Rachels (ed), Moral Problems: A Collection of Philosophical Essays (Harpercollins College Div,

1979).

Robert Orfalli, Death with dignity: The case for Legalizing Physician Assisted Dying and

Euthanasia, (Published 2022, Mill City Press, Inc.).

95
Robin L., Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law and Euthanasia in Netherlands: Factual Disputes

(Montepelier Publishing 2004) 3.

V.B Lious-Jacques, ‘’Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate’ in Kure (ed), The “Good

Death” Controversy in Humans and Animal (Intech, 2011) 65.

W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (14th edn, London, Strahan, 1803) 20.

Yale Kasimar, Euthanasia Legislation: Some Non-Religious Objections (first published 1958,

Downing) 85.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

A.M Ebrahim, ‘Islamic Perspective Euthanasia’ [2007] 39 JIMA 173.

Abdul Habeeb A., A.O Sambo and A.B Abdulkadir, ‘The Right To Die Via Euthanasia: An

Expository Study Of The Shari’ah And Laws In Selected Jurisdictions’ [2012] 6 Advances In

Natural Sciences 673.

Adeniyi B. Omipidan, ‘’Euthanasia as a Contemporary Issue in the Jurisprudence of Rights: The

position of Islamic Laws’’ [2013] 4 YONSEL 85.

Alegeh Augustine, ‘Law and Natural Development’(Annual Justice Idigbe Memorial Lecture,

University of Benin, 2016).

C M Parks, ‘’Effects of Bereavement on Physical and Mental Health - A study of the Medical

Records of Widows’’ [1964] 2 BPH.MED. J. 274 .

Canadian Law Reform Commission, ‘’Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment’’

Working Paper 28.

96
D. Richards “Constitutional Privacy, the Right to Die and the Meaning of Life” [1981] 222

Williams and Mary L.R.327.

Dillman RJM, ‘’Legemate J. Euthanasia in The Netherlands; the state of the debate’’ [1994] 1

EUR J Health Law 81.

Emeka C. Ekeke (Rev) and Ephraim A. Ikegbu, ‘The Sanctity of Human Life in the Twenty

Century and the Challenge of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide’ [2010] 1 International Research

Journals 314.

Emmanuel E.J., ‘The History of Euthanasia Debates in the United States and Britain’ [1994]

Annals of internal Medicine 54.

Glliford E, ‘ArtresMoriendi: ‘Active Euthanasia and the Act of Dying’ [1993] 40 UCLA Law

Review 1545.

Helga Kuhse, ‘’The Sanctity of Life Doctrine in Medicine: A critique’’ [1988] 14 Journal of

Medical Ethics 161.

John A. Onimhawo, ‘Euthanasia: A Philosophical –Theological Evaluation of the Traditional

Nigerian Experience’[1996] 28 Ibadan Journal Of Religious Studies 106.

John B. Mitchell, “My Father, John Locke, and Assisted Suicide: The Real Constitutional

Right’’ [2006] 3 Indiana Health Law Review 45.

Joshua Samson Ayobami, ‘Euthanasia: Socio-Medical and Legal Perspective’ [2014] 4

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 96.

Julia Nicol and Marlisa Tiedmann, ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Law in Selected

Countries’ [2015] 116 E Library of Parliament 2.

97
Julia Nicol and Marlisa Tiedmann, ‘Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Law in Selected

Countries’ [2015] E Library of Parliament 2 .

Key Paul, ‘’Euthanasia: Law and Morality’’ [1998] 6 AUCKLAND U.L Rev. 224.

Koenane M.L.J, ‘Euthanasia in South Africa: Philosophical and Theological Consideration’

[2017] 38 Verbum Et Ecclesia 1549.

Kolade Faseyi, ‘The Right to Die: The place of Religion, Ethics and the Law’ [2017] 8

Lagerwey Walter, Guidelines for Euthanasia, [1987] 3 ISSUES L & MED 429 .

Lawrence M. Friedman, ‘Legal Culture and Social Development’ [2010] 1 Law & Society

Review 29.

Mohammed Madadin, Houria S Al Sahwan & Khadijah K Altarouti, ‘’The Islamic perspective

on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia’’ [2020] 60 Medicine, Science and the Law 278.

Morris A. Arval, “Voluntary euthanasia’’ 45 [1970] WASH. L. REV. 239.

Oluyemisi Bambgose, ‘’Euthanasia: Another Face Murder’’ [2004] 48 International Journal of

Offender Theraphy and Comparative Criminology 111.

Omipidan B.A, ‘Euthanasia: The 21st Century Culture of Death’ [2011] 7 Nigeria Bar Journal

213.

Pridfeon J Lucy, ‘’Euthanasia Legislation in the European Union: Is a universal law possible?’’

[2006] HANSE LR.

R.I Adebayo, ‘Euthanasia in The Light of Islamic Law and Ethics’ [2008] 11 Nigeria

Associations of Arabic and Islamic Studies 1.

98
Scholten Hans-Joseph, ‘’Justification of Active Euthanasia’’[1986] MED & L 169.

Suresh Bada Math & Santosh K. Chaturvedi, ‘’Euthanasia: Right to life vs Right to Die’’ [2012]

136 Indian Journal of Medical Research 899.

Uduiguwomen F. Andrew, ‘Çontemporary Issues and Problems in Biomedical Ethics’ [2003]

Calabar: Vision Connection.

Wibren Van Der Burg, ‘’The Slippery Slope argument’’ [1991] 102 Ethics 42.

ONLINE SOURCES

‘’A General History of Euthanasia’’, (24Grammata) <https://24grammata.com/a-general-history-

of-euthanasia/> Accessed 23 January 2022.

‘’A Humanist Discussion of Euthanasia’’ (Issues Online, 2015)

<https://www.issuesonline.co.uk/articles/a-humanist-discussion-of-euthanasia-4509> Accessed

17 February 2022.

‘Airedale NHS Trust v Bland’ (Lawteacher, January 2022)

<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/airdale-nhs-trust-v-bland.php?vref=1accessed>Accessed 19

January 2022.

All Answers Ltd, ‘United States Law And History On Euthanasia’ (Lawteacher.net, February

2022)

Angell Marcia, How to Die in Massachusetts (The New York Review Of Books, 2014).

Anthony O. Nwafor, ‘Comparative Perspective on Euthanasia in Nigeria and Ethiopia’ [2010] 18

African Journal of International and Comparative Law 184.

99
BBC News “Proeuthanasia Agument Ethics”, <http://www.com.bbc.co.uk> Accessed 11th

March 2022.

BBC News, “Religion and Euthanasia’’

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/religion/religion.shtml> Accessed 22 January 2022.

Botelho G., ‘’California Governor Signs Right to Die Bill’’ (CNN, 2015) <http://cnn.it/IU4lnsd>

Accessed 18 February 2022.

Canadian Law reforms, (CBC Radio-Canada) <www.cbc.ca/on eutha.htm> Accessed 25

February 2022.

‘’Canton of Vaud: Assisted Suicide’’ (European Institute of Bioethics, 7 January 2013)

<https://www.ieb-eib.org/fr/loi/fin-de-vie/euthanasie-et-suicide-assiste/canton-de-vaud-

assistance-au-suicide-337.html> Accessed 17 January 2022.

Collins Okeke, Ginka Ikechuchukwu and Ayotomiwa Adebanjo, ‘The Offences of Murder,

Culpable Homicide and Attempt to Murder in Nigeria’ (Mondaq, 6 August 2021)

<https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/crime/1099056/the-offences-of-murder-culpable-homicide-

and-attempt-to-murder-in-nigeria> Accessed 6 August 2021.

D. Albert “A Journal of the Mcgrath institute for Church Life”,

<http://ww.churchlifejournal,nd,edu.com> Accessed 11 March 2022.

‘’Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide’’ (The BBC)

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/> Accessed 17 January 2022.

Euthanasia Conference, ‘’Attitude Towards Euthanasia in Ancient Times and Today’’ (3rd

Conference of the Euthanasia Educational Council, 17 January 1970).

100
Findlaw, ‘’Washington Euthanasia Laws’’ (FindLaw)

<www.statelaws.fiindlaw.com/washington-law/Washington-euthanasia-laws.html> accessed on

17 February, 2022.

Gov.UK. “Free Movement Rights: Derivative Rights of Residence”,

<https://www.assets.publishing.service.gov.uk>Accessed 11 March 2022.

Imoges Foulkes, “Switzerland Plans New Controls on Assisted Suicide” (The BBC, 2 July 2010)

<https://www.bbc.com/news/10461894#:~:text=Plans%20to%20regulate,practice%20to%20the

%20terminally%20ill.> Accessed 17 January 2022.

Jacob M., “A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? Rethinking the Controversy of 1906”

<https://www.jstor.orgn/stable/44448062> Accessed 11 March 2022.

Mark Oppenheimer, ‘The Turning of an Athesist’ <https://www.nytimmes.com> accessed March

8 2022.

Merriam-Webster dictionary, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia>

(Merriam-Webster dictionary) Accessed 17 January 2022.

Mike Chekwube, ‘’A critical Appraisal of Euthanasia under Nigerian Laws’’ [2014] NAUJILJ

75.

Nuhun A and others. Experiences and Perspectives of People who Pursued Medical Assistance in

Dying. In qualitative study in Vancouver, BC. Can Fam Physician. 2018; 64: e380-6.

Obi M.C, ‘A Critical Appraisal of Euthanasia under Nigerians Laws’ [2014] 4 Nnamdi Azikwe

University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence 75.

101
Oniha B.E., ‘Legality of Euthanasia and the Right to Die in Nigeria’ (Edo Judiciary)

<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 17 January 2022.

Previn M. Mattews, ‘’Assisted Suicide and Religion: Conflicting Conception of the Sanctity of

the Human Life’’ [1995] 84 GEO. L.J. 1995.

“Right-to-die activist Nan Maitland ‘Died with Dignity” {The BBC News, 4 April 2011)

<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12959664> Accessed 17 June 2022.

‘Robin Lunge, Maria Royle & Michael Slate, ‘’Oregon’s Death With Dignity Law and

Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Factual Disputes’ (Legislative Council, 2004)

<http://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=29&docid=7207> Accessed 17

February 2022.

‘’Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia’’ (The Vatican)

<https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/

rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html> Accessed 28 January 2022.

Swiss Criminal Code, RS 331.0; Christain Schwarzenegger & Sarah J. Summers, “Criminal Law

and Assisted Suicide in Switzerland, Submission to the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying

for the Terminally’’ (III Bill, House of Lords, Zurich, 3 February

2005).<https://www.ius.uzh.ch> Accessed 9 March 2022.

The Theory of Good and Evil, (Oxford, 1907) 1, 209.

102
United States, Oregon, State Legislature, ‘The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Oregon Revised

Statutes, c 127, 127.800, s.101(3).

V.B Lious- Jackques, ‘’Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate’’ in Kure (ed), The Good

Death, Controversy in Humans and Animal (Intech, 2011) 65.

103