In pursuit of personal liberty

I often find myself giving my son that blanket parent
justification — Because I said so — in response to his questions as
to why he can or cannot do something. As his mother, it is my duty
to try to protect, to guide him and to use the knowledge and wisdom
that I have acquired in my life to keep him from harm. Having lived
many years before our children, our children have the benefit of
experiences. Sure, the world changes from generation to generation
but there is a foresight that comes with age and as parents, we are
expected to use that foresight to guide, guard and protect our
children.

When we become adults, we become responsible for our actions. We
may disappoint our parents and become fodder for the gossip mill
with our actions but the law will typically allow us to decide how
we want to live our lives. The law will only step in when our
actions impact on the rights of others or when as a society we have
decided that certain actions are against the public interest.

Although suicide, the taking of one’s own life remains an
offence in Nigeria, many other jurisdictions have decrimininalised
suicide. There is a shift away from the traditional view that gives
people the ultimate control of their lives, when and how to live it
and end it should they choose to do so. However, even in
jurisdictions where suicide has been decriminalised, society has
not gone as far as to allow assisted suicide, mercy killings and
other acts of a third party that help to actualise one’s desire to
end one’s own life. A person may decide to take an overdose of
pills, put a plastic bag over their head or leap off a bridge in
exercise of their right to end their life. A third party may stand
aside and do nothing while the victim takes the action to end their
life and they probably will not face any criminal liability.
However, the moment they participate in the act, no matter how
slight that participation may be, they run the risk of facing
criminal charges for their role in the death of the victim.

A few months ago, in separate incidents, three young men lost
their lives, and apparently the misuse of drugs and alcohol was the
suspected cause of death for these young men. In one of the cases,
the young man had been partying with friends and took part in a
drinking contest. From the reports, it seems that the young man
ingested the alcohol of his own volition and no charges were filed
against any of his friends or drinking mates. Might the result have
been different if it was found that someone else introduced the
alcohol into his system? For instance, by pouring the alcohol down
a funnel into the mouth of the victim? Quite possibly, yes! There
have been cases in other jurisdictions where people have faced
trial for the death of a friend or customer and the courts have
found them not culpable in the death of their friend or customer.
So for instance, two addict friends are getting high on cocaine and
one of them subsequently dies after a binge on cocaine. Unless the
surviving friend helped the victim in the act of snorting the
cocaine, it is unlikely that he will be held liable for the death
of his friend. The law assumes that as an adult, you know that
certain actions carry with them a risk of death and when a person
carries out those actions, they assume the risk of its
consequences. Likewise, there have been cases where a drug dealer
delivers the drugs, and victim injects or snorts the drug on their
own. The courts have found them not culpable in the death of the
victim.

Remember the case of Dr Conrad Murray? He is the Los Angeles
doctor who administered the Propofol and other drugs, the mix and
dosage of which took the life of Pop icon, Michael Jackson. Dr
Murray was found guilty of manslaughter and spent some time in
jail. It did not matter that Michael Jackson had a habit or an
addiction and often self-medicated using oral alternatives, what
mattered was that Dr Murray administered the Propofol and the
standard of care he gave after administering the drug was
considered to be sub-standard. The big difference here, of course,
is that Dr Murray was a professional who was under a duty to the
concert promoters and to his patient, Michael Jackson. Expert
testimony showed that Dr Conrad had failed in his duty. Other
doctors who testified pointed out lapses in the professional
judgment and conduct of Dr Conrad.

People do stupid things all the time in the expression of their
personal liberty. They may ask for a favour from family and friends
to actualise their vision of personal liberty and it may be of no
harm to oblige. But, do not get caught up in someone else’s
stupidity in their own expression of their liberty. A desire to
travel the world with a travel companion is one thing; a desire to
end one’s life with the assistance of another person is quite
another thing. Assist wisely!

I often find myself giving my son that blanket parent
justification — Because I said so — in response to his questions as
to why he can or cannot do something. As his mother, it is my duty
to try to protect, to guide him and to use the knowledge and wisdom
that I have acquired in my life to keep him from harm. Having lived
many years before our children, our children have the benefit of
experiences. Sure, the world changes from generation to generation
but there is a foresight that comes with age and as parents, we are
expected to use that foresight to guide, guard and protect our
children.

When we become adults, we become responsible for our actions. We
may disappoint our parents and become fodder for the gossip mill
with our actions but the law will typically allow us to decide how
we want to live our lives. The law will only step in when our
actions impact on the rights of others or when as a society we have
decided that certain actions are against the public interest.

Although suicide, the taking of one’s own life remains an
offence in Nigeria, many other jurisdictions have decrimininalised
suicide. There is a shift away from the traditional view that gives
people the ultimate control of their lives, when and how to live it
and end it should they choose to do so. However, even in
jurisdictions where suicide has been decriminalised, society has
not gone as far as to allow assisted suicide, mercy killings and
other acts of a third party that help to actualise one’s desire to
end one’s own life. A person may decide to take an overdose of
pills, put a plastic bag over their head or leap off a bridge in
exercise of their right to end their life. A third party may stand
aside and do nothing while the victim takes the action to end their
life and they probably will not face any criminal liability.
However, the moment they participate in the act, no matter how
slight that participation may be, they run the risk of facing
criminal charges for their role in the death of the victim.

A few months ago, in separate incidents, three young men lost
their lives, and apparently the misuse of drugs and alcohol was the
suspected cause of death for these young men. In one of the cases,
the young man had been partying with friends and took part in a
drinking contest. From the reports, it seems that the young man
ingested the alcohol of his own volition and no charges were filed
against any of his friends or drinking mates. Might the result have
been different if it was found that someone else introduced the
alcohol into his system? For instance, by pouring the alcohol down
a funnel into the mouth of the victim? Quite possibly, yes! There
have been cases in other jurisdictions where people have faced
trial for the death of a friend or customer and the courts have
found them not culpable in the death of their friend or customer.
So for instance, two addict friends are getting high on cocaine and
one of them subsequently dies after a binge on cocaine. Unless the
surviving friend helped the victim in the act of snorting the
cocaine, it is unlikely that he will be held liable for the death
of his friend. The law assumes that as an adult, you know that
certain actions carry with them a risk of death and when a person
carries out those actions, they assume the risk of its
consequences. Likewise, there have been cases where a drug dealer
delivers the drugs, and victim injects or snorts the drug on their
own. The courts have found them not culpable in the death of the
victim.

Remember the case of Dr Conrad Murray? He is the Los Angeles
doctor who administered the Propofol and other drugs, the mix and
dosage of which took the life of Pop icon, Michael Jackson. Dr
Murray was found guilty of manslaughter and spent some time in
jail. It did not matter that Michael Jackson had a habit or an
addiction and often self-medicated using oral alternatives, what
mattered was that Dr Murray administered the Propofol and the
standard of care he gave after administering the drug was
considered to be sub-standard. The big difference here, of course,
is that Dr Murray was a professional who was under a duty to the
concert promoters and to his patient, Michael Jackson. Expert
testimony showed that Dr Conrad had failed in his duty. Other
doctors who testified pointed out lapses in the professional
judgment and conduct of Dr Conrad.

People do stupid things all the time in the expression of their
personal liberty. They may ask for a favour from family and friends
to actualise their vision of personal liberty and it may be of no
harm to oblige. But, do not get caught up in someone else’s
stupidity in their own expression of their liberty. A desire to
travel the world with a travel companion is one thing; a desire to
end one’s life with the assistance of another person is quite
another thing. Assist wisely!