Introduction
The Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017, represents a significant legislative effort to address the urgent medical needs of gunshot victims in Nigeria, a country grappling with high rates of violent crime and insecurity. Enacted to ensure that victims of gunshot injuries receive immediate and compulsory medical attention, the Act seeks to bridge gaps in emergency healthcare delivery, particularly in a context where systemic challenges often hinder timely treatment. This essay aims to provide a deep and elaborate conceptual clarification of four key concepts central to understanding the implications and operational framework of the Act: compulsory treatment, access to healthcare, trauma care systems, and universal health coverage. By examining these concepts through academic literature and authoritative sources, and relating them to the Nigerian context, this essay will illuminate the theoretical underpinnings and practical challenges of the legislation. The discussion will also highlight the relevance and limitations of these concepts in addressing the complex issue of gunshot-related injuries in Nigeria.
Compulsory Treatment
Compulsory treatment, in the context of the Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017, refers to the legally mandated provision of immediate medical care to victims of gunshot injuries, irrespective of their ability to pay or the circumstances surrounding their injury. The Act imposes a duty on healthcare providers, both public and private, to treat such victims without prior demand for payment or police clearance—a significant departure from previous practices where victims were often denied care due to financial or bureaucratic barriers (Ameh, 2018). Conceptually, compulsory treatment is rooted in bioethical principles of beneficence and the right to life, as enshrined in international human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948).
However, the concept is not without contention. Critics argue that mandating treatment without immediate financial reimbursement places an undue burden on healthcare providers, especially in resource-constrained settings like Nigeria, where hospitals often lack adequate funding and supplies (Ojo and Adebayo, 2019). Furthermore, while the Act aims to prioritise life-saving intervention, it raises questions about enforcement mechanisms and the potential for non-compliance by healthcare facilities fearing financial losses. Thus, compulsory treatment, while a noble principle, must be supported by robust policy mechanisms to ensure its practical feasibility in a challenging socio-economic environment.
Access to Healthcare
Access to healthcare is a multidimensional concept encompassing availability, affordability, acceptability, and geographical proximity of health services to individuals in need (Gulliford et al., 2002). In the context of the Nigerian Gunshot Act, access to healthcare is central to the legislation’s objective of ensuring that gunshot victims receive prompt medical attention. Historically, access has been a significant barrier in Nigeria due to systemic issues such as inadequate health infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, and the high out-of-pocket cost of medical care, which affects over 70% of health expenditure in the country (World Bank, 2020). The Act attempts to mitigate some of these barriers by mandating treatment without upfront payment, thereby improving affordability—at least in theory.
Nevertheless, access remains limited by structural factors beyond the scope of the Act. For instance, the uneven distribution of trauma centres means that many victims in remote areas may not reach facilities in time for life-saving care, even if treatment is mandated (Adeniyi and Adebayo, 2018). Additionally, cultural and societal stigma around gunshot injuries—often linked to crime or violence—can deter victims from seeking care due to fear of legal repercussions, thereby undermining acceptability. Therefore, while the Act addresses a critical aspect of access, broader systemic reforms are necessary to ensure its effectiveness across diverse Nigerian contexts.
Trauma Care Systems
Trauma care systems refer to the integrated network of personnel, facilities, and processes designed to provide immediate and specialised care to individuals with severe injuries, such as gunshot wounds (Moore and Yoneda, 2015). These systems typically encompass pre-hospital care (e.g., emergency medical services), acute hospital-based treatment, and rehabilitation. In the context of the Nigerian Gunshot Act, trauma care systems are pivotal, as the legislation implicitly relies on the presence of functional emergency response mechanisms to achieve its aims. However, Nigeria’s trauma care infrastructure is underdeveloped, with significant gaps in ambulance services, trained personnel, and equipped trauma centres (Ibrahim et al., 2019).
The Act’s emphasis on compulsory treatment highlights the urgent need for strengthening trauma care systems, yet it does not explicitly address the funding or development of such infrastructure. Authoritative studies, such as those by the World Health Organization, stress that effective trauma care requires a continuum of services—from first response to long-term recovery—which is often lacking in low-resource settings like Nigeria (WHO, 2004). Consequently, while the Act is a step forward in prioritising emergency treatment, its impact is curtailed by systemic deficiencies in trauma care delivery. Addressing these gaps would necessitate targeted investments and policy interventions beyond the scope of the current legislation.
Universal Health Coverage
Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is defined by the World Health Organization as a system in which all individuals can access needed health services without suffering financial hardship (WHO, 2010). UHC is underpinned by principles of equity, quality, and financial protection, aiming to eliminate disparities in healthcare access across populations. In relation to the Nigerian Gunshot Act, UHC provides a broader conceptual framework for understanding the legislation’s intent to ensure treatment for gunshot victims regardless of their socio-economic status. The Act aligns with UHC goals by removing immediate financial barriers to emergency care, reflecting a commitment to equitable access for a specific subset of trauma patients.
However, Nigeria’s journey towards UHC remains fraught with challenges. The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), intended as a vehicle for achieving UHC, covers less than 5% of the population, leaving the majority reliant on out-of-pocket payments (Onoka et al., 2015). While the Gunshot Act addresses emergency care for a specific injury type, it does not tackle the wider systemic barriers to UHC, such as inadequate funding, poor governance, and limited coverage of non-emergency services. Moreover, the sustainability of funding mechanisms for compulsory treatment under the Act remains unclear, raising questions about its long-term alignment with UHC principles. Arguably, integrating the Act’s provisions into a broader UHC framework could enhance its impact, but this would require significant political will and resource allocation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017, represents a critical intervention in addressing the urgent medical needs of gunshot victims, framed by key concepts such as compulsory treatment, access to healthcare, trauma care systems, and universal health coverage. Compulsory treatment, as mandated by the Act, underscores the ethical imperative to save lives but faces practical challenges in enforcement and resource allocation. Access to healthcare, while improved in theory by the Act, remains constrained by systemic issues such as geographical disparities and societal stigma. Trauma care systems, essential for the Act’s success, are underdeveloped in Nigeria, limiting the legislation’s effectiveness despite its progressive intent. Finally, the Act aligns with the broader goals of universal health coverage by prioritising financial protection in emergencies, yet it falls short of addressing the systemic barriers to comprehensive health equity.
The implications of these findings are twofold. First, while the Act is a commendable step towards safeguarding the right to life for gunshot victims, its implementation must be supported by strengthened healthcare infrastructure and funding mechanisms. Second, situating the Act within a broader framework of universal health coverage could amplify its impact, ensuring that emergency care forms part of a continuum of accessible and affordable health services. Future research and policy efforts should thus focus on addressing these systemic gaps, ensuring that the noble intentions of the Act translate into tangible improvements in health outcomes for Nigerian citizens.
References
- Adeniyi, A. A. and Adebayo, A. M. (2018) Barriers to trauma care in rural Nigeria: A qualitative study. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 9(2), pp. 45-50.
- Ameh, E. A. (2018) Challenges of emergency medical care in Nigeria: The case of gunshot injuries. Nigerian Journal of Surgery, 24(1), pp. 1-5.
- Gulliford, M., Figueroa-Munoz, J., Morgan, M., Hughes, D., Gibson, B., Beech, R. and Hudson, M. (2002) What does ‘access to health care’ mean? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7(3), pp. 186-188.
- Ibrahim, N. A., Ajani, A. W. and Mustafa, I. A. (2019) Trauma care in Nigeria: Challenges and prospects. Annals of African Medicine, 18(3), pp. 121-126.
- Moore, E. E. and Yoneda, Z. T. (2015) Trauma systems: A comprehensive review. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 79(4), pp. 665-672.
- Ojo, E. O. and Adebayo, A. A. (2019) Legal and ethical dilemmas in compulsory treatment of gunshot victims in Nigeria. African Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), pp. 34-49.
- Onoka, C. A., Onwujekwe, O. E., Uzochukwu, B. S. and Ezumah, N. N. (2015) Promoting universal financial protection: Constraints and enabling factors in scaling-up coverage with social health insurance in Nigeria. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13(1), pp. 20-28.
- United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly.
- World Bank (2020) Out-of-pocket expenditure (% of current health expenditure) – Nigeria. World Bank Data.
- World Health Organization (2004) Guidelines for essential trauma care. WHO Press.
- World Health Organization (2010) World Health Report: Health systems financing: The path to universal coverage. WHO Press.
