This document discusses euthanasia in Nigeria from a legal and societal perspective. It begins by defining euthanasia and outlining the medical justifications provided for it. However, it argues that the right to life is protected under the Nigerian constitution and cannot be waived, with few exceptions. Killing another person is seen as highly unlawful and against societal norms. The document concludes that euthanasia would not be accepted in Nigerian society as it violates the sacredness of life.

1. EUTHANASIA IN NIGERIA: THE LAW; LIFE AND SOCIETY
Nurudeen Emmanuel1
Introduction:
The word euthanasia is coined from two Greek words: eu meaning well; and thanathos,
meaning death. Hence it can be said to mean “dying well”. It has come to be regarded in
medical jurisprudence variously as painless death; mercy killing and safe death. This article
seeks to investigate the jurisprudence of euthanasia in the light of sacredness of life and
sanctity of the law protecting same. The scope of this work does not cover the wide
spectrum of right to life except as it relates to the concept of euthanasia.
The Meaning and Incidence of Euthanasia:
Euthanasia is the license empowering a medical officer to terminate the life of a patient on
account of hugeness of the suffering the patient is undergoing, his little chance of survival,
and the huge cost of maintaining his life. The patient is a great liability to his environment
and a discomfort to himself. Sometimes when he manages to speak he begs that he be
killed. Do all these justify terminating his life?
Medical justification of the concept is hinged on two reasons:
1. The need to reduce pain and
2. Facilities.
It is argued that the patient will himself benefit more in dying than in living a meaningless
life. Going by the pain he is experiencing his death would be a relief and an end to all those
pains. Hence the concept is only justifiable, even according to its protagonists, in extremely
severe cases where there is a very little chance of survival of the patient.
Moreover, the little available resources rather than exhausting them on a hopeless patient
could be invested on a more promising end. These resources include the financial
implication of maintaining the patient; the attention of the medical experts devoted to the
patient; the medical facilities he enjoys and the unwarranted anxiety he gives his family
through their care for him. All these, no doubt, are valuable consideration in law. But do
they merit the terminating of a life?
The medical experts regard themselves as custodian of healthy living and rightly so. But it
seems to me that they are custodians of life first, before a “healthy” one. When one
removes “life” there cannot be a “healthy life”. It is thus ironical that the guardian of life
advises that the life he guards be terminated on the excuse that the owner is seriously in
pain and would be grateful that someone helps him terminate it.
1 LLB. LASU,

2. The Right toLife:
The right to life is an inalienable right. What this means is that no one can be deprived of his
life, neither can he waive voluntarily his own right to life. However, a person can legally
forfeit2 his right to life by committing such offences that attract capital punishment.3 This
right is thus universally recognized.4 In Nigeria the right is protected by s. 33 of the 1999
Constitution which provides as follows:
“33. (1) Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his
life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which
he has been found guilty in Nigeria.
(2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of
this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as
are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary-
(a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property:
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained; or
(c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.
From the above, the law appears clear enough on the scope of right to life. The law says,
save the exceptions clearly stated in the section, that no one shall be deprived of his right to
life. It follows that any such deprivation not justified by any of the exceptions stated in the
section amounts to a contravention of the section.5 And euthanasia is not one of them.6 For
the sake of clarity, the section recognises killing as justified only in the following
circumstances:
1. Execution of the sentence of a court;
2. Defence of a person;
3. Defence of property;
4. Effecting a lawful arrest;
5. Preventing the escape of a lawful detainee;
6. Suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.
Even the stated exceptions above have conditions which must be fulfilled before availing a
person:
2 “To forfeit” is jurisprudentially differentfrom “to waive”. Whereas the former deals with forceful deprivation
of a rightby way of punishment, the latter is concerned with voluntary surrender of rights.
3 That is even in countries that still recognizecapital punishment.See N. O. Emmanuel, “Right to Life and Right
to Livelihood under the 1999 Constitution”see also,Kalu v The State(1998) 13 NWLR (pt 583)p 531
4 See the UDHR Art.3; ICCPR Art.6; ACHPR Art. 4 etc.
5 See also sec.306 CC
6 Euthanasia is indeed what is meant by the prohibition in sec 311 CC entitled “Acceleration of Death”.

3. 1. The sentence of a court sought to be executed must be in respect of a criminal
offence of which the person has been found guilty in Nigeria. This also has some sub-
conditions which include:
(a) The crime allegedly committed attracting the sanction of death penalty must be
so recognised according to a valid law in force in Nigeria at the time of
commission of the crime;
(b) The sentence must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(c) There must be an opportunity to appeal over the sentence;
(d) There actually must be no appeal pending over the sentence.7
2. Defence of a person leading to the death of another must be for the preservation of
the body of the person against unlawful violence. This could be self-defence in
response to an apprehended attack on one’s body; or defence of another under
one’s care against such unlawful violence. The sole sub-condition here is that the
person must reasonably apprehend fear of violence immediate upon his person or
the person of the other in his care. The test is objective test--- that is, whether a
reasonable man in his circumstance would apprehend the kind of fear he allegedly
apprehended to justify the killing of his assailant.8
3. Defence of property follows the same condition as that of defence of person.9
4. The power to arrest carries with it the power to effect that arrest with force where
the person to be arrested is resisting the arrest.10 But the condition here is that the
force exerted to effect the arrest must be reasonably proportional to the purpose
sought to be achieved. Where the force is in excess the officer effecting the arrest
would be personally liable.11
5. The condition in preventing a lawful detainee from escape is also as above. The force
must not be in excess of the purpose sought.12
6. Where in a bid to suppress riot, insurrection, or mutiny, the force exerted is
reasonably justifiable in the circumstance and the death of a person results
therefrom, there is no liability.
Nothing here suggests the killing of a person to save his agonies. Not even where the person
allegedly consented or requested that he be killed. Where the latter is the case, Adaramola
raised two fundamental questions as follows:
1. Does a person have a duty to live?
2. Does a person have a right to die?13
7 In Bello v A.G. Oyo (1986) 5 NWLR 826 the Supreme Court condemned as reckless,illegal,and
unconstitutional theexecution of a court’s order authorizingthe killingof a person whose appeal is pending
and awarded damages with respect thereto.
8 See for more on self-defence, sec.286-288 Criminal Code(CC)
9 See sec. 289-293 CC
10 See sec. 10(2) Interpretation Act, Cap. 192 LFN 1990
11 See R411 of PoliceRegulations
12 The condition is thatthere is no need of usingsuch force that could lead to the death of the detainee where
other means of achievingthe same purpose would do.

4. I will refrain from answering the first question because, although Adaramola answered it in
the affirmative, it seems that the reason he gave justified more the answering of the second
question in the negative. No person has any right to die in view of domestic laws that punish
attempted suicide. Analogous to this is the abhorrence of such heinous offences as murder
and the high sanction it attracts under our law.14 Even where death results from inadvertent
killing of another the price is as high as the offender spending the remainder of his life in
jail.15
The problem with euthanasia however is that it seeks to validate by consent that which the
law has expressly prohibited. If the person giving consent as to his death would nonetheless
be contravening the provisions of the law were he to kill himself or attempt to kill himself,
he cannot delegate to another person the doing of that which he cannot legally do under
our law; that is, killing himself through another person.16 Here his consent is irrelevant. The
law says the state is interested in your life and has thus decreed that you must live.17 And so
your life cannot be taken except in accordance with the law, and it is not in accordance with
the law that it be taken by yourself through the agency of another.18
Sacredness of Life and Societal Attitude to its Termination:
Human society has from time immemorial regarded life as sacred. Its violation is a huge sin
and a source of discomfort to the violator.19 Indeed there is an increasing agitation for
abolition of capital punishment in view of the argument that it is not a better option to
reduce the rate of crime.20 Be that as it may, could there be a valid killing in a hospital on
the basis of the fact that the victim is undergoing too much agony? Would our society
welcome that? Or could it be an acceptable phenomenon in our society that a person
should be killed simply because keeping him alive is regarded as a waste of resources?
In the first place, the act of killing to reduce pain is alien to our society. There is no valid
historical record to show that we could kill a person to improve his condition. In fact killing
itself is the peak of evil one can do his fellow human being. Our society always believes that
13 Adaramola,Jurisprudence(4th ed.) LexisNexis (2008) p.58
14 Sec. 316 & 319(1) CC
15 See sec. 317 & 325 CC
16 A person cannot delegate to another the doingof that which he has no power or rightto do.
17 Whether the state is really interested in our lifeis one thing, and whether itwants us to livewell is another.
For in Nigeria itcan be argued that the state does not providethe basic amenities for us to enjoy our lifeand
they cannot be held to accountfor it: see sec. 6(6)(c) CFRN, 1999.This also served as the basis of the argument
of the author in Right to Life and Right to Livelihood under the 1999 Constitution
18 Aidingsuicideis an offence under the criminal codepunishablewith lifeimprisonment;see sec326 CC. In the
alternative,any such persons found upon this arrangement can correctly be charged with conspiracy to
murder under the Criminal Code;see sec.324 CC
19 See Quran 5 v 27-32
20 Many jurisdictions in theUS and Europe includingsomeAfrican states likeSouth Africa,have abolished
death penalty. Whether death penalty should be abolished is a discussion thisauthor does not wish to discuss
here and it is not my view that it should.But it suffices to show how human societies havefor years cherished
the sanctity of life.

5. when a person is still alive his condition can improve. But once he expires, all hope about
him is gone.21 All this shows that ours is an optimistic society. Ours is not a society that loses
hope. Ours is a society that believes that a worst condition can turn best. Ours is a society
that regards life as the basis of human society and the elimination of the individual is as
abhorrent as elimination of the whole of human society.22
As for the pain, our society believes that the Omnipotent can help remove it. Fortunately,
Islaam also shares this opinion.23 Allah says in the Glorious Quran:
“And (remember) Ayyuub, when he cried to his Lord, ‘Truly distress has seized me,
but Thou art the Most Merciful of those that are Merciful.’
“So We listened to him: We removed the distress that was on him, and We restored
his people to him, and double their number, ---- as a Grace from Ourselves, and a
thing for commemoration, for all who serve Us.”24
What we are made to understand from the above verse is that Prophet Ayyuub’s critical
pain notwithstanding he managed to cry to his Lord Who restored his health to him. In our
modern medical analysis we would have ‘mercifully’ killed Prophet Ayyuub through our
modern concept of euthanasia but Allah is the Most Merciful of those that are Merciful.25
On the other argument as to the cost of maintaining the invalid, the protagonists of
euthanasia submitted that it is cost-saving to eliminate a life. They premised their argument
on the loss of hope of recovery of the patient. This is untenable as we have shown above.
Furthermore, it is the ideology of the capitalists to prefer their wealth to the life of an
individual. They fear that the invalid is a drain; a liability on his family and the society and
thus the best course to take is to eliminate him.
There are two basic assumptions of this theory: (a) that human life has no other than
economic value; and (b) that the value of human life is measurable.
The fallacy of this reasoning is embedded in those wrong assumptions, and God-willing we
shall expose this fallacy.
The capitalist theory is hinged on profit maximization and so every asset not useful for
further procreation of assets is best disposed of. Thus man has value, in capitalist theory
only in so far as he can yield economic profit. When he can no longer yield this profit either
as a result of ill-health or otherwise, it is best to dispose of him. That is why one can easily
21 There is a popular Yoruba saying:“baoku ise o tan” that is,whilealivewe areup and doing. Another saying
goes thus: “b’emi ba si wa ireti mbe” that means whilealivethere is hope.
22 See Q 5 v 32
23 Q 10 v 107
24 Q 21 v 83-84
25 They term euthanasia mercy killing.Butas far as I am concerned, no killingis by mercy. The ultimate mercy
is in healingthe patient.

6. and conveniently argue that this man is useless and can safely be killed. Capitalists also
assume that the value of human life is measurable and is at its peak while hale and healthy
and can produce economic goods. On the other hand, when he falls sick, the value of his life
depreciates and the more that sickness deteriorates the more the loss in the value of the
patient’s life until it reaches the level when the value is on level zero and the further
keeping of the man keeps the value on the negative. This is the point they argue that the
patient is better eliminated.
It is completely wrong to assume that human life has no other value than economic. It is an
obvious fact that many who are not economically productive can be socially or biologically
productive. Traditionally, women used not to work but were economically dependent on
their husbands and this alone does not justify extinguishing them from the society. Women
were a source of comfort to their husbands and mothers to their children. These have
nothing to do with economic gains but are yet an indispensable part of the society. Hence,
human life has, in addition to economic value, social and biological productivity.
It is wrong also to assume that the value of human life is measurable. This is because it is
something that is subjective and which can only be measured in terms of one thing or
another; and so it is only in terms of that thing at a time. The value can only be measured in
terms of economic, social, intellectual, religious, etc. contribution. Unfortunately, the basis
of measurement of the value of human life according to the capitalist is the amount of
wealth a person could amass. This as we have shown above is wrong.
An objection could be raised as to the propriety of keeping the invalid since his own case is
not only that of economic unproductiveness but also that he is biologically unproductive;
and so his own case is different from that of the traditional woman we made illustration of.
This objection is not sustainable in the sense that though the invalid may not be biologically
or economically productive, yet he is socially and religiously productive.26 As some writers in
Norman St John Stevas27 brilliantly argued, the lives of such patients are of value to the
society because they elicit the feelings of compassion and mercy in those who take care of
them.28 Adaramola adds that it may make the fit appreciate the fortune of their well-being
and thereby resolve to be more useful to themselves and to society.29
On the basis of the above stated it is the opinion of the writer of this article that euthanasia
is an evil from all angles. It is un-Islaamic; un-Godly, and smacks of lack of faith. Allah says:
26 And this is the essence of human creation; see Q 51 v 56-57
27 Norman St John Stevas, The Right to Life, 1964; cited by Adaramola,op. cit. at p.60
28 This also has religiousvalue:the Prophet (SAW) was reported by Aisha (RA) in Sahih Muslimas sayingthat
Allah is Merciful and itis by His Mercy that He puts compassion in the heart of his servant.
29 Likewise the Messenger of Allah (SAW) encourages visitingthe sick.This helps us appreciateour own well -
being and thereby give thanks to Allah.

7. “...and never give up hope of Allah’s soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of Allah’s
soothing Mercy except those who have no faith.”30
And also in another verse He says:
“...despair not of the Mercy of Allah”31
Claiming that the invalid unnecessarily wastes the resources is like the issue of the burying
of helpless daughters by the Arabs during the pre-Islaamic period. They used to fear that
their daughters were useless (just as some of us justify euthanasia on the claim of
uselessness of the patient) and would share their food and resources. They thus used to
bury them alive. On this point, Allah revealed the following verses:
“kill not your children on a plea of want; ---We provide sustenance for you and for
them;”32
And also like His statement:
“Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well
as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”33
What we understand here, may Allah guide us aright, is that it is not permissible to kill
anyone on the fear of lack of resources to maintain his life. And this exactly is what
euthanasia stands for. “Nor take life which Allah has made sacred except for just cause”34
and the just cause does not contemplate euthanasia.35
30 Q 12 v 87
31 Q 39 v 53
32 Q 6 v 151
33 Q 17 v 31
34 Q 17 v 33
35 The exception accordingto this verse which is meant by the “justcause” is retaliation (Qisaas).The other
exceptions includeapostasy and adultery.