Does the right to life (A) creates (B) a right to use someone else body without continuous consent?

TKDB

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535760/

"AUTONOMY, LIBERTY, AND MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING

John Coggon and José Miola

Additional article information

I. Introduction

A central tenet to much ethical argument within medical law is patient autonomy.1Although we have seen a welcome move away from a system governed by largely unchecked paternalism, there is not universal agreement on the direction in which medical law should advance.2Competing concerns for greater welfare and individual freedom, complicated by an overarching commitment to value-pluralism, make this a tricky area of policy-development.3 Furthermore, there are distinct understandings of, and justifications for, different conceptions of autonomy.4 In this paper, we argue that in response to these issues, there has been a failure by the courts properly to distinguish political concepts of liberty and moral concepts of autonomy.

English medical law demands non-prejudicial deference to patients’ reasons for giving or refusing consent to treatment, creating a practical system of moral value-pluralism.5 Whilst this is not intrinsically problematic, it creates problems in applying principles such as autonomy, which are often bound to ideas of rationality. We therefore give an account of what respecting autonomy means and how it contrasts with the protection of other related and important concepts. This enables us to critique the existing legal picture. Although we are content with the general direction of medical law in this area, we discuss causes for concern with the current situation. Our primary criticism is that there may be an excessive commitment to ostensible rather than substantive protection of autonomy. We also suggest that the proper demands of respecting an individual patient’s values, whether or not the patient is able to act autonomously,6may not be fully acknowledged. We map these concerns by exploring developments in medical jurisprudence and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Our analysis exposes troublesome issues, but we argue that positive changes can be effected within the existing system. Legal change is not needed provided that judges, policy-makers, and practitioners understand the import of their actions and the bearing of existing principle. "

ZeusAres42

No, the right to life does not entail the right to use someone else's body without continuous consent. 

However, are strictly making a reference here to the abortion debate?

Plaffelvohfen

@ZeusAres42

Not really, it has implications in that debate yes (abortion) but this stands or falls on its own...