EUTHANASIA: AN ACT OF COMPASSION OR PLAIN MURDER?.
Written by Lkite Eriayo.
In the 1990s, a woman named Nancy Cruzan was in a persistent vegetative state after a car crash and her family wanted to withdraw her feeding tube but the hospital refused without a court order.[1]
In 2002, Diane Pretty was diagnosed with motor neuron disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; ALS) and she wanted her husband to assist in her suicide without facing prosecution.[2]
There are lots of controversial cases similar to this which have caused both the medical and legal fields to be in a bind, most especially the health law aspect of law.
Euthanasia is just a way of painlessly ending life to relieve unbearable suffering.
In this article, we'll be looking at the pros and downsides of euthanasia.
According to Healthline, "Euthanasia is the practice of ending someone's life to relieve their suffering". Doctors perform euthanasia when requested by people who have terminal illnesses and are in a lot of pain, both physically and emotionally.
Euthanasia comes in two types: active and passive. Active euthanasia is when someone intentionally gives medications or substances to cause death, like with a lethal injection. On the other hand, passive euthanasia is when medical treatments are stopped or not given, allowing the patient to die naturally.
Legally, this distinction is important. Active euthanasia is considered murder in many places, while passive euthanasia might be allowed under certain conditions. Laws about euthanasia differ a lot from one country to another. For example, countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada have made euthanasia or assisted suicide legal under strict rules, focusing on personal choice and protection in medical practice.
In contrast, India has made active euthanasia illegal but allows passive euthanasia under set guidelines, following a Supreme Court ruling in 2018. Meanwhile, Canada’s 2015 ruling in Carter v. Canada[3] recognized assisted suicide as a constitutional right. Meanwhile in Nigeria for example, the case is quite different; Euthanasia (whether active or passive) is generally illegal and viewed as culturally and morally unacceptable. Nigerian law does not recognize any right to die, and any act that results in the intentional ending of a human life is typically prosecuted as murder or manslaughter, regardless of consent or circumstance. The country’s legal and religious frameworks prioritize the sanctity of life above personal autonomy in such matters.
Cases like Adegoke v. State (2006)[4] illustrates this clearly. In that case, the defendant was convicted for the unlawful killing of a person who was in a state of suffering. The court rejected any justification based on compassion, emphasizing that Nigerian law upholds the protection of life regardless of illness or pain.
Similarly, in Okonkwo v. Nwoye (2011), the court reaffirmed the principle that life is inviolable under Nigerian law, even in cases involving serious medical conditions, further underscoring the country's strict stance on end-of-life decisions.
Many people see euthanasia as a kind act based on respect for human dignity and the right to avoid suffering. Supporters believe that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their end-of-life care, especially in cases of terminal illness or extreme pain.
But not everyone agrees. Some critics see active euthanasia as a form of murder because it involves intentionally ending a life, which many laws prohibit even if there's consent. Ethical worries include the value of life, the risk of misuse, and the pressure vulnerable people might feel from society.
Another key issue is ensuring that consent is informed and that the person is mentally fit to make such a decision. Places that allow euthanasia have strict processes in place to guarantee that a patient's choice is voluntary and not under pressure. Medical evaluations are crucial to prevent abuse and to make sure requests come from genuine needs, not from mental health issues or outside influences.
Whether euthanasia is seen as murder or a compassionate act isn't a straightforward question; it depends on the laws, ethical views, medical practices, and human rights considerations involved. While it is often associated with relieving suffering, the moral and legal debates around it underscore how we value life. In the end, it's up to lawmakers and courts to create laws that balance the value of life with the quality of life, especially at the end.
References:
[1]Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
[2]Pretty v. United Kingdom, (2002) 35 EHRR 1.
[3]Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331, 2015 SCC 5.
[4] Adegoke v. State (2006)15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 394.
Share your comments!