Investigating the Moral and Legal Conundrum of Juggling Human Rights With Human Life in the Nigerian Medicare and Medicaid Services

Abstract

In modern healthcare administration, the connection between preserving human life and protecting human rights creates a difficult ethical quandary. The idea of beneficence highlights healthcare practitioners' responsibility to prioritise efforts that promote well-being and life preservation. This notion is typically visible in decisions regarding blood transfusions, triage measures, and end-of-life care. However, this pragmatic approach can also clash with the ideas of self-governance and fairness, particularly when it results in unequal access to medical treatment or affects individual liberty. The ideals of autonomy highlight the importance of protecting patients' rights to make their own decisions and guaranteeing equitable access to healthcare services. Patients have the right to make well-informed decisions about their own medical care, even if those decisions do not align with the primary goal of maximum life preservation. When health treatment conflicts with religious convictions, Africans choose their religion over their own lives. Most patients do not consider the people who may be impacted by their actions, including children, parents, and dependents. It is then necessary to safeguard dependents by establishing paternalism as a legal exception to autonomy. Using doctrinal research methods, this study investigates the complicated ethical terrain where the need to preserve lives frequently conflicts with the need to respect individual autonomy and dignity. This study looks into the difficulties that arise when dealing with competing priorities. This study suggests that the Nigerian legal and healthcare systems should be modified to make paternalism a statutory exception to autonomy.