Medical doctors: Between Hippocratic oath and right to strike

Although civil rights and liberties are mostly expressly given either constitutionally or statutorily, right to strike is not anywhere in the extant Nigerian labour laws. The right stems from series of protection and immunities granted to the actions of striking unionists in the first place; and as a derivative of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and association in the second place. The fact that unionist have never at any point before or a little after the ban imposed during the 1970’s  civil strife ever complained of being barred from exercising the right, also is a good pointer to the existence of the right. These in addition to myriads of judicial pronouncements and international conventions in that respect. Without mincing words, it is safe to brag everywhere that both essential and non-essential service providers in Nigeria have right to embark on industrial action in order to collectively bargain their employment terms with their employers. Right to strike, the world over is gradually being considered a fundamental right.

The case, however, is not flatly the same with takers of the Hippocratic oath (also known as physicians oath). In the oath adopted by Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria from the General Assembly of World Medical Association of Geneva 1948, prospective medical practitioners before they are issued with a practice license, will have to freely but solemnly swear to consecrate their lives to the service of humanity,  to “make the health of their patients their first consideration” and to maintain the utmost respect for human life. This clearly means that actions howsoever which could be calculated to infer that medical practitioners give priority to anything else other the health of their patients amounts to a breach of the sacred oath.

The imports this oath are worthy as they appear because every time doctors withhold their services we get the ugly image of events from untold sufferings to untimely deaths and unending queues and postponements of appointment of patients who require special care. Part of the corrosive effect also is the psychological trauma inflicted on indigent patients who either have no option but watch their sick relatives slowly retire or resort to an ineffective traditional cure which does nothing but palliate their conscience that at least they are doing something.

Ordinarily, therefore, a medical practitioner who abandoned his patients’ health or discharges them prematurely in furtherance of industrial action for certain personal pecuniary interest should be liable to the patients in tort and contract for foreseeable exacerbations and injuries caused to that patient whom by virtue of the physician’ oath expects nothing but preferential treatment.

Perhaps the only instance where a medical practitioner could be allowed in law to embark on an industrial action would be instances where the action could be shown to border on his/her explicit constitutional right to life which under no circumstance may be construed to have been forfeited.

The far-reaching legal effect of the Hippocratic oath is that it remains the root of code of conduct of medical practitioner and because it engulfed quite of a lot of etiquettes expected to be observed by medical practitioners, there is no direct punishment for its breach. Thus the punishment could range from the admonition of the practitioner to striking out his/her name from the register of medical practitioners and in gross cases imprisonment if the breach also constitutes violation of the relevant penal laws which regular court enforce.

But as already pointed, the extant labour relation laws (especially the Trades Dispute Act) prepared various kinds of protections and immunities to striking unions irrespective of whether they are takers of Hippocratic oath. It is regrettable on a general note to say that in spite of the comparatively large salaries doctors take home, they appear always to be at the forefront of industrial conflict in this country. The oath does not seem to impose on them some kind of restraint.

To the federal government, I say congratulations that Nigeria is officially out of recession but remember that “the peak of institutional irresponsibility is when government fulfills not her obligation until unionists strike.”  Hasten the fulfilment of the sensible demands of these integral professionals before the entire institution requires hospitalization. This the government should do with a lasting solution. Whatever that means. God save us.