This paper critically analyzes the legal and ethical framework for patient rights in Nigeria, arguing that a significant chasm exists between codified rights and their judicial enforceability. While the Constitution, the National Health Act (NHA) 2014, and the Patients’ Bill of Rights (PBoR) establish a foundational legal architecture, their practical application is undermined by systemic, socio-cultural, and institutional challenges. Employing a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, this analysis contrasts Nigeria’s aspirational framework with the more robust, justiciable models found in South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Canada/the United States. Findings reveal that low public and professional health literacy, a deeply entrenched paternalistic culture, and a fragmented, inefficient legal system, evidenced by a medical malpractice litigation rate of only 1.1%, collectively render patient rights largely ineffective. The report concludes with an evidence-based roadmap for reform, proposing a multi-faceted strategy that includes: a constitutional amendment to create a justiciable right to health, new legislation to establish direct institutional liability for systemic failures, the implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) pilot programs, and mandatory integration of health law and ethics into medical curricula. These reforms are essential to translate legal principles into tangible remedies, foster a patient-centered culture, and ultimately strengthen Nigeria’s commitment to achieving universal health coverage and improving public trust in its healthcare system
Elgujja et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: