GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Consent not a defence, court tells body modification artist

domingo, 17 de febrero de 2019

BioEdge: Consent not a defence, court tells body modification artist

BioEdge: Consent not a defence, court tells body modification artist

Bioedge

Consent not a defence, court tells body modification artist

by Michael Cook | 16 Feb 2019 |

Dr Evil

Dr Evil, a British body modification artist, has been found guilty of three counts of grievous bodily harm for tongue-splitting and nipple removal despite the fact that his clients consented to the procedures.

The argument put forward in court by Dr Evil, aka Brendan McCarthy, was strongly supported in the community. A petition with 13,400 signatures argued "for the right to express ourselves in whatever modified manner we wish in a safe environment".

Judge Amjad Nawaz ruled that the kind of radical procedures in which Dr Evil specialised were not analogous to tattoos and piercings. "What the defendant undertook for reward in this case was a series of medical procedures for no medical reason," he said.

The bioethical angle here is the notion of consent. Writing in The Conversationlegal academic Samantha Pegg pointed out that:

There are limits on the harm individuals can consent to. Most people are aware that the law does not sanction euthanasia, yet may be unaware that giving consent to the infliction of lesser harms may also not absolve those causing the injury from criminal charges.
This is a longstanding legal principle. Where actual bodily harm or above is inflicted upon a person with no good reason, in public or private, the consent of the victim is irrelevant. Whether there is a “good reason” is a matter for the courts to decide.

In the case of Dr Evil, a Court of Appeal was asked whether there was a defence of consent. It said No.

there was no “good reason” to allow consent to absolve the appellant of liability. They stressed that the procedures posed a serious risk to health and were surgical in nature – yet they were performed for no good medical reason by an individual who was not medically trained.

After this ruling, Dr Evil had no choice but to plead guilty. He will be sentenced in March.

But as Ms Pegg observes, the decision of the Court of Appeal still leaves open what kind of procedures are reasonable and which are not.

It could even be argued that some kinds of cosmetic surgery are unreasonable. And in fact, Cambridge University academic Dennis J. Baker contended in the New Criminal Law Review a couple of years ago that “The surgeon violates the dignity of both adult and minor patients when she carries out risky nontherapeutic harmful cosmetic surgery merely because a vulnerable patient has requested it ... The medical profession has hidden the criminal harm in unnecessary cosmetic surgery by dressing it up as genuine medicine.”

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Hi there,

We have a range of interesting and provocative stories this week. In our lead, Australian doctors are in the eye of a political storm over refugees. In a pattern familiar in other countries, conservatives and progressives have been battling for years over immigration policy. To over-simplify: a new law makes two doctors – not government officials or politicians – the gatekeepers who decide whether refugees currently living off-shore in special camps need medical treatment in Australia. It is sure to be an election issue.

Consent is fundamental to contemporary medicine. So why can’t Dr Evil, a British body modification artist, ply his trade on fully-consenting adults? A court in the UK has ruled that there are limits to the kind of harm that can be inflicted, even if people consent. Dr Evil’s case shines a new light on some medical procedures.

And, astonishingly, the involuntary euthanasia of possibly as many as 34 elderly patients in two Catholic hospitals in the city of Columbus has been almost ignored outside of Ohio.

There’s lots more. Just follow the links below.

Cheers,