INTRODUCTION
In all modern constitutions of civilized nations, right to life is important and sacrosanct. Humans all over the world are clothed with the constitutional right to life. This right is not only recognized as a matter of municipal Law, but it is also a right that has the global blessings and regional instruments .( article 3 of the universal declaration of human right 1948).
The prohibition of taking human life is based on fundamental and highly placed ethical and religious conviction. It has been posited that, this concept is founded on the notion that life is a gift over which we have stewardship, but not final control. This position seems to be based on religious conviction.
The right to life is the most basic, the most fundamental, the most primordial and supreme right which human beings are entitled to have and without which the protection of all other human rights becomes either meaningless or less effective. Surprisingly, in the face of this epidemic of laws that give credence to the sanctity of life and the need to protect the lives of all members of human race; the act of euthanasia is gradually gaining firm acceptability in many countries through the instrumentality of law.
Aside abortion, euthanasia is the most arguable issue today in forensic medicine. The euthanasia debate seem to have taken the centre stage of profound intellectual discourse in medical jurisprudence. Many have argued that the decision to take one's life is a private choice and a matter of individual autonomy which society has no right to be concern with. This position according to Oluduro presupposes that a person has the unfettered right to ask another person to take his life, and at the same time justify the taking of such life on the basis of willful consent and request. The question of euthanasia is one of human rights, over the years, man has some certain rights which were described as inalienable rights; man has sought recognition of these rights by government; in recognition of the sanctity of these rights. Our constitution has styled this rights as "Fundamental Human Rights". If a man has the right to relinquish his right to life, does an individual have the right to decide that he does not want to live any longer? The assumption that an individual has unfettered powers to determine his existence or non-existence is wrong says Oluduro.
In all modern constitutions of civilized nations, right to life is important and sacrosanct. Humans all over the world are clothed with the constitutional right to life. This right is not only recognized as a matter of municipal Law, but it is also a right that has the global blessings and regional instruments .( article 3 of the universal declaration of human right 1948).
The prohibition of taking human life is based on fundamental and highly placed ethical and religious conviction. It has been posited that, this concept is founded on the notion that life is a gift over which we have stewardship, but not final control. This position seems to be based on religious conviction.
The right to life is the most basic, the most fundamental, the most primordial and supreme right which human beings are entitled to have and without which the protection of all other human rights becomes either meaningless or less effective. Surprisingly, in the face of this epidemic of laws that give credence to the sanctity of life and the need to protect the lives of all members of human race; the act of euthanasia is gradually gaining firm acceptability in many countries through the instrumentality of law.
Aside abortion, euthanasia is the most arguable issue today in forensic medicine. The euthanasia debate seem to have taken the centre stage of profound intellectual discourse in medical jurisprudence. Many have argued that the decision to take one's life is a private choice and a matter of individual autonomy which society has no right to be concern with. This position according to Oluduro presupposes that a person has the unfettered right to ask another person to take his life, and at the same time justify the taking of such life on the basis of willful consent and request. The question of euthanasia is one of human rights, over the years, man has some certain rights which were described as inalienable rights; man has sought recognition of these rights by government; in recognition of the sanctity of these rights. Our constitution has styled this rights as "Fundamental Human Rights". If a man has the right to relinquish his right to life, does an individual have the right to decide that he does not want to live any longer? The assumption that an individual has unfettered powers to determine his existence or non-existence is wrong says Oluduro.
MEANING AND CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA:
The subject of euthanasia is not clear because it is bedeviled by uncertainty of definition. The word euthanasia is derived from Greek words: "eu" meaning "good" and "Thanatos" meaning "death".
The Black's Law Dictionary, define euthanasia as: The act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, especially a painful one, for reason of showing mercy.
Learner's Oxford Advance learner's Dictionary, defines euthanasia as: The practice of killing without pain a person who is suffering from disease that cannot be cured or from extreme old age, so that he or she can die with dignity.
In the words of Carlos F. Gomez, a professor of medicine in the university of Virginia medical school, euthanasia has "come to connote the agonal stage before death and a relatively painless, easy passage into death... It also implies that the agent or co-agent in the act is a physician".
However, defined or described, euthanasia primarily involves the taking away of one's life by another on the consent of the person whose life is taken or the consent of family members.
Euthanasia has been classified into various categories for the purpose of clearer understanding and to some extent, these classifications helps in the determination of the degree of criminal responsibility. The classification includes the following:
1. Voluntary euthanasia
2. Involuntary euthanasia
3. Active euthanasia
4. Passive euthanasia
5. Physician assisted suicide
6. Non-voluntary euthanasia
The subject of euthanasia is not clear because it is bedeviled by uncertainty of definition. The word euthanasia is derived from Greek words: "eu" meaning "good" and "Thanatos" meaning "death".
The Black's Law Dictionary, define euthanasia as: The act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, especially a painful one, for reason of showing mercy.
Learner's Oxford Advance learner's Dictionary, defines euthanasia as: The practice of killing without pain a person who is suffering from disease that cannot be cured or from extreme old age, so that he or she can die with dignity.
In the words of Carlos F. Gomez, a professor of medicine in the university of Virginia medical school, euthanasia has "come to connote the agonal stage before death and a relatively painless, easy passage into death... It also implies that the agent or co-agent in the act is a physician".
However, defined or described, euthanasia primarily involves the taking away of one's life by another on the consent of the person whose life is taken or the consent of family members.
Euthanasia has been classified into various categories for the purpose of clearer understanding and to some extent, these classifications helps in the determination of the degree of criminal responsibility. The classification includes the following:
1. Voluntary euthanasia
2. Involuntary euthanasia
3. Active euthanasia
4. Passive euthanasia
5. Physician assisted suicide
6. Non-voluntary euthanasia
Voluntary Euthanasia
This arises when the person who is terminally sick request that his life be taken away to ease his pain and suffering. Involuntary Euthanasia occurs in situations where the person killed expressed wish to the contrary; in other words, such a person must have expressly communicated his wish to live. "The motive for involuntary euthanasia, relief from suffering may not be different from that of voluntary euthanasia; the ground of its justification lies on a paternalistic decision as to what is good for the victim of the disease"
This arises when the person who is terminally sick request that his life be taken away to ease his pain and suffering. Involuntary Euthanasia occurs in situations where the person killed expressed wish to the contrary; in other words, such a person must have expressly communicated his wish to live. "The motive for involuntary euthanasia, relief from suffering may not be different from that of voluntary euthanasia; the ground of its justification lies on a paternalistic decision as to what is good for the victim of the disease"
Active Euthanasia
This suffice where death is caused by direct positive action III response to a request of the patient. The fact that active euthanasia is unlawful was emphasized in AIREDALE NHD V. BLAND, where lord Mustil stated that:
Mercy killing by active means is murder... Has never so far as I know been doubted. The fact that for some, although not for all, transform the moral quality of his act, but makes no difference in law. It is intended to kill or cause gracious bodily harm which constitute the mensrea of murder, and the reason why the intent was formed makes no different at all.
This suffice where death is caused by direct positive action III response to a request of the patient. The fact that active euthanasia is unlawful was emphasized in AIREDALE NHD V. BLAND, where lord Mustil stated that:
Mercy killing by active means is murder... Has never so far as I know been doubted. The fact that for some, although not for all, transform the moral quality of his act, but makes no difference in law. It is intended to kill or cause gracious bodily harm which constitute the mensrea of murder, and the reason why the intent was formed makes no different at all.
Passive Euthanasia
This is a situation whereby the death of a patient is caused by omission to act. This is visible where there is a withdrawal of some form of support that would have kept the victim alive.
This is a situation whereby the death of a patient is caused by omission to act. This is visible where there is a withdrawal of some form of support that would have kept the victim alive.
Physician Assisted Suicide
Suicide suffices when a person takes his own life. Physician assisted suicide is a type of suicide where a physician provides the useful information or the means of committing suicide.
Non-voluntary Euthanasia: This is a type of euthanasia whereby the person killed made no request that he should be killed and gave no consent to his being called. It mostly suffices where the person killed was not in the position to give consent or refuse consent to euthanasia.
Suicide suffices when a person takes his own life. Physician assisted suicide is a type of suicide where a physician provides the useful information or the means of committing suicide.
Non-voluntary Euthanasia: This is a type of euthanasia whereby the person killed made no request that he should be killed and gave no consent to his being called. It mostly suffices where the person killed was not in the position to give consent or refuse consent to euthanasia.
EUTHANASIA AND HUMAN RIGHT LAWS
The concept of human right existing today is not new, it has being in existence and has progressively developed with history of mankind. Human rights are those rights that are inherent in man without which man's humanity will be diminished. According to Ezejiofor, "These rights may be defined as moral rights which every human being everywhere, at all times ought to have simply because of the fact that in contradistinction with other beings he is rational and moral". For the purpose of this paper, right to life which is sacrosanct and central to the act of euthanasia is the only right that will be considered. As stated earlier in this work, the right to life is the most basic, the most fundamental, the most primordial and supreme rights which human beings are entitled to have and without which the protection of all other human rights becomes either meaningless or less effective.
The concept of human right existing today is not new, it has being in existence and has progressively developed with history of mankind. Human rights are those rights that are inherent in man without which man's humanity will be diminished. According to Ezejiofor, "These rights may be defined as moral rights which every human being everywhere, at all times ought to have simply because of the fact that in contradistinction with other beings he is rational and moral". For the purpose of this paper, right to life which is sacrosanct and central to the act of euthanasia is the only right that will be considered. As stated earlier in this work, the right to life is the most basic, the most fundamental, the most primordial and supreme rights which human beings are entitled to have and without which the protection of all other human rights becomes either meaningless or less effective.
CONCLUSION
The act of euthanasia has suffered a lot of criticism, with only few persons propagating its gospel. The stand of the law in a lot of jurisdictions and the general perception of people about the evil of euthanasia is predominantly based on moral and religious perceptions.
In my humble opinion, euthanasia should be given some consideration in extreme situation, like the position adopted by the Japanese Court of the district of Yakahoma, where the court enunciated four condition under which euthanasia will be allowed:
i. That the patient suffers a continuous physical pain.
ii. That death of the person must be inevitable and imminent.
iii. That it must be shown, that all measure possible have been taken to stop the pain.
iv. That the person must have clearly expressed consent.
The implication of this stand if allowed in Nigeria is that our penal laws must be amended to create such exceptions. If that is not done, then the law remains that any form of euthanasia in Nigeria is criminal.
In my humble opinion, euthanasia should be given some consideration in extreme situation, like the position adopted by the Japanese Court of the district of Yakahoma, where the court enunciated four condition under which euthanasia will be allowed:
i. That the patient suffers a continuous physical pain.
ii. That death of the person must be inevitable and imminent.
iii. That it must be shown, that all measure possible have been taken to stop the pain.
iv. That the person must have clearly expressed consent.
The implication of this stand if allowed in Nigeria is that our penal laws must be amended to create such exceptions. If that is not done, then the law remains that any form of euthanasia in Nigeria is criminal.
Orhii Ternenge Michael
HNAUB law.
HNAUB law.
For www.lawfaqs.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment