|
Gunshot Victims And Medical Treatment By Andrews Solicitors Tuesday 11 March, 2008 added another depressing statistic to the endless and ever growing list of why Nigerians continue to lose faith in the hope for a better country. Adetokunbo Adeleye, 39, a much admired young teacher at the Rock Montessori School, Lekki, Lagos, needlessly lost his life. How? First by the mindless, unmotivated blood thirstiness of a the growing cantonment of brigands called armed robbers compounded, as was to transpire, by the crass disregard of a fundamental watchword of the medical profession – help first and question later – based, inescapably on utmost ignorance if not wickedness. In a country rife with all kinds of social difficulties, basic transport being one at the top of the pile, he stopped, on his way home, in a gesture of good will, to offer a lift to people he saw standing by the roadside who he felt needed assistance. His generosity was to cost him his life because these Nigerians of unmentionable parentage, lowlifes as they must be, turned his hospitality into a death sentence, attacked and shot him. Common place as armed robbery has become, it does not appear to be so much the injuries he sustained that led to the horrifying unpleasantness that was to follow. He was taken to a nearby hospital where, predictably, the facilities were woefully inadequate to deal with his condition. He was then referred on to the nearby Teaching Hospital where, from all known accounts, medical staff at the hospital failed to; ignored or neglected to treat him either properly or at all until he unfortunately passed away. The information in the public domain appears to suggest that the failure to offer him adequate or any treatment at all may have been predicated on an absurd, definitely unlawful, certainly questionable policy that appears to have become prevalent amongst Nigerian hospitals for many years now that gunshot victims – that is, anyone who sustains an injury as a consequence of having received a bullet wound – will not be provided medical treatment until a police report has been produced!. This notorious policy has remained one of practice for so long now that it may have, unwittingly, crept into the protocol of patient management in hospitals in Nigeria. For the record, the correct process is that injury victims with bullet wounds, like anyone else, are entitled to urgent and immediate treatment. Any circumstance that suggests that the injuries may have been sustained by crime (which, in many cases other than accidents would be the case) is and should be immediately notified to the police. This communication with the police, ideally, should take place by staff other than those offering the treatment. In essence therefore, any issues arising from the provenance of the injuries can and should be treated contemporaneously with the remedial treatment that is being offered to the patient. There is no justification – legal or medical – to support the position that both treatment and investigation, if necessary, should not be undertaken contemporaneously. So where did this innately absurd policy emerge from? Grapevine evidence appears to suggest that hospitals – especially small private hospitals – have experienced difficult treatment from the police authorities because of the prevalent belief that the majority of those who receive the gunshot wounds are themselves those responsible for perpetrating the associated violence and that offering them treatment enables them to achieve a speedier recovery to enable them escape from the law. Hospitals, it appears, have gained the impression that in order to avoid the difficulties that they experience with the police, they insist, quite outrageously, that those carrying such injuries obtain a police report first, presumably to provide indemnity from the imminent visitation and consequences of law enforcement. Needless to state, this is not part of Nigeria’s criminal jurisprudence. Frank Mbah, Police Public Relations Officer of Lagos State recently appears to have been quoted as saying that although there is no law that stipulates that a person who has received bullet wounds should not be treated, he offers the proviso that when the case is not so serious, a police report can be obtained before treatment is offered. Again, as a matter of law, this is completely wrong. There is no requirement in Nigerian’s jurisprudence that any form of police involvement should be achieved before treatment is offered to an injured person. Having established, therefore that there are no circumstances of which medical facilities should be withdrawn from someone with bullet points without prejudice to the reason offered by the Medical Authorities, the posture of hospitals must be seriously deprecated. Whatever the reason is for withholding medical support, hospitals must be mindful of the fact that they, themselves, are potentially exposed to criminal and civil liability. Nigerian criminal jurisprudence is pointedly clear on the consequence of unlawfully withholding medical treatment from a person requiring it. Such action may constitute involuntary manslaughter within the meaning of section 303 of the Criminal Code which imposes a duty upon any person who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to any other person to use reasonable care in doing so. A doctor who negligently causes a patient’s death is guilty of manslaughter if, by his negligence or incompetence, his actions constitute such a disregard for life and safety as to amount to a crime. (R – v Bateman [1925] 133 LT 73L. This position is more fully explained in the West African Court of Appeal’s decision in R – v Akerele (1941) 7 WACA 56 in which the Court found that a doctor in that situation would, at the very least, be responsible for the consequences affecting the life and health of another person although not necessarily criminal negligence. Adeleye is not the first. His unfortunate death was preceded by others who were just as innocent as he was. Continuing in this manner, he will not be the last. Indeed this situation has occurred on so many occasions that it is, itself, fast achieving the dubious distinction of becoming an illness or medical condition itself. Every effort should be made to clarify the position; tighten enforcement; improve decision making within hospitals in these circumstances and where this persists, criminalise this position as it affects medical professionals. Those who are charged with the obligation of saving lives should not be the same people partaking in taking it. |