Aunty Esther: The Constitution Protects Life, Not Death by Belief – Abdul Mahmud

By Abdul Mahmud

A woman lies on a hospital bed. Her life is running out. Doctors stand by her. Her family prays. Online friends are losing patience over the ping pong game between blood, faith, personal rights and medical science. She belongs to the sect that rejects blood transfusion. She says no. She holds on to her belief. Her story, shared on X by Sir Dickson Wizarab, raises a familiar conflict. The conflict between personal beliefs and the duty of the state to keep life safe. The Nigerian law protects life. The Constitution guards life as the first right. The state carries the burden of that right. The state prosecutes murder. The state keeps convicts on death row. The state takes life by execution. The state cannot then look away when a citizen moves toward death through preventable means. The logic is simple. A state that holds the power to end life must also hold the duty to preserve life. Many scholars support this view. Ronald Dworkin, the American philosopher, argues that society holds a collective interest in life. He says the society carries a stake in each life because life is a shared project. John Stuart Mill, known for his strong defence of liberty, draws a clear line. He says personal liberty stops when harm becomes irreversible or when society carries a deeper responsibility for the outcome. A patient who rejects life-saving treatment crosses that line. The harm is not personal alone. The harm affects the community, the family, the health system, and the moral duties of the state. Nigeria has faced this argument before. The Supreme Court confronted it in Esabunor & Ors v. Faweya & Ors. The Court saved the life of a child whose parents rejected blood transfusion. The court acted in the best interest of the child. That part of the judgment stands strong. But the part that concerns adults stands on weaker ground.

Justice Rhodes-Vivour held that an adult Jehovah’s Witness may refuse blood transfusions based on belief. He drew the line at adulthood. He saw autonomy. He saw freedom of religion. He saw the right to choose death over treatment. His logic follows Western models. His logic reads well in seminar rooms. But the logic collapses when placed beside the duties of the Nigerian state, which protects life through public health laws. Hospitals treat emergencies without waiting for forms. Doctors act when seconds matter. Society runs on the assumption that life comes first. A judgment that says an adult may refuse life-saving treatment based on belief weakens that foundation. The judge gave religious autonomy a wider shield than the Constitution intended. That ruling opens a floodgate. Many may walk through that gate. Some will die. Others will leave families behind. Hospitals will face potential lawsuits. Doctors will stand before medical panels. Policemen will become hesitant in emergencies. A country with a fragile health system should not embrace a principle that makes death easier.

Look at the Nigerian reality. Many adults cannot read medical forms. Many panic in emergencies. Many rely on religious leaders for direction. A refusal of treatment may not reflect free will. A refusal may reflect fear, pressure, or misguided teaching. The state cannot fold its arms. The state must not take a passive role when life hangs by a thread. Many scholars that I have read have warned about this danger. Professor Bernard Dickens, a global authority on medical law, argues that autonomy without safeguards produces harm. He says refusal of treatment in a medical crisis may not reflect true consent. Professor Atul Gawande, a surgeon and writer, warns that hospitals must focus on saving human life first and argue about the law later. Both scholars call for strong state action. Both scholars support intervention when belief crosses into self-destruction.
The Nigerian state should adopt this position. The state keeps prisons. The state keeps execution chambers. The state controls who dies under the law. That same state cannot endorse private death through avoidable medical refusal. The state should protect adults from beliefs that lead to death. The state should set boundaries around religious doctrine when doctrines endanger life. No belief should defeat the duty to save life. A person may say this approach threatens freedom. Freedom matters. Freedom shapes democracy. Freedom gives meaning to life. But freedom has limits. No citizen may use freedom to invite death through medical neglect. No citizen may demand that society watch as preventable harm unfolds. The Supreme Court should revisit this principle. The Court should place the duty of the state above religious refusal in medical emergencies.

The story told by Sir Dickson exposes the danger clearly. A woman lay dying. Doctors are pleading that blood will save her. One pint. One procedure. One intervention. But belief is closing the door. Death is creeping in. A life is coming to a terminal end not through fate, not through an accident, not through lack of a hospital, but through a doctrine that rejects assistance. A country cannot afford this. A legal system should not support this. Religious groups argue that human life belongs to God. They argue that blood is sacred. They argue that medical intervention violates divine instruction. But the state cannot rely on private scripture. The state must rely on public duty. The state must protect life as a national value. A citizen may pray, fast, and sing hymns; but a citizen doesn’t have the power to choose death over treatment in a way that undermines public order, public health, and the moral responsibility of the state.

The Supreme Court should revisit Rhodes-Vivour’s reasoning. The Court should adopt a broader approach. The Court should recognise that the right to life does not include the right to die through preventable means. The Court should affirm that the state has a legitimate interest in preserving life, even when the patient is an adult. A clear rule will protect doctors. A clear rule will protect hospitals. A clear rule will protect families. A clear rule will reflect the nation’s duty. A country that struggles with emergencies cannot afford gaps in medical law. Nigerians die every day from causes that can be treated. Hospitals lack beds. Families cannot pay bills. Roads take lives. A legal doctrine that permits avoidable death through refusal of treatment adds a new layer of tragedy.

Dickson’s story underscores a single truth: the state must step forward. It must place the protection of life above the claims of belief. Life nourishes belief, sustains faith, and makes worship possible; and for life to continue rather than collapse, the law must first secure it. A person may hold firm religious convictions, cling to faith, and trust in divine power; but no one should wield a right that permits the refusal of a basic medical intervention when death hovers near.

The state must stand in the breach. The law must choose life. The constitution must protect life, not death by belief.