Bodily integrity

Last updated

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Contents

Government and law

Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland, bodily integrity has been recognised by the courts as an unenumerated right, protected by the general guarantee of "personal rights" contained within Article 40 of the Irish constitution. In Ryan v Attorney General it was pronounced that "you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your life or health. If you are in custody, you have a right not to have your health endangered while in prison". [7] [8]

In a separate case M (Immigration - Rights of Unborn) -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the right to bodily integrity extended to the unborn. [9] In a summary of the case in section 5.19, the Supreme Court stated:

...the only right of the unborn child as the Constitution now stands which attracts the entitlement to protection and vindication is that enshrined by the amendments in Article 40.3.3 namely, the right to life or, in other words, the right to be born and, possibly, (and this is a matter for future decision) allied rights such as the right to bodily integrity which are inherent in and inseparable from the right to life itself. [10]

United States

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy, which, as articulated by Julie Lane, often protects rights to bodily integrity. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Court supported women's rights to obtain birth control (and thus, retain reproductive autonomy) without marital consent. Similarly, a woman's right to privacy in obtaining abortions was protected by Roe v. Wade (1973). In McFall v. Shimp (1978), a Pennsylvania court ruled that a person cannot be forced to donate bone marrow, even if such a donation would save another person's life.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) on June 24, 2022. The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia, [11] laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners, [12] and forced blood tests. [13]

Canada

In general, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defends personal liberty and the right not to be interfered with. However, in certain unique circumstances government may have the right to temporarily override the right to physical integrity in order to preserve the life of the person. Such action can be described using the principle of supported autonomy, [14] a concept that was developed to describe unique situations in mental health (examples include the forced feeding of a person dying from the eating disorder anorexia nervosa, or the temporary treatment of a person living with a psychotic disorder with antipsychotic medication).

One unique example of a Canadian law that promotes bodily integrity is Ontario's Health Care Consent Act . This law has to do with the capacity to consent to medical treatment. The HCCA states that a person has the right to consent to or refuse treatment if they have mental capacity. In order to have capacity, a person must have the ability to understand and appreciate the consequences of the treatment decision. The law says that a person is capable with respect to a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service if the person is able to understand and appreciate the information that is relevant to making such a decision.

Human rights

Two key international documents protect these rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also requires protection of physical and mental integrity. [15]

The Human Rights and Constitutional Rights project, funded by Columbia Law School, has defined four main areas of potential bodily integrity abuse by governments. These are: Right to Life, Slavery and Forced Labor, Security of One's Person, Torture and Inhumane, Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[ citation needed ]

Women's rights

Though bodily integrity is afforded to every human being, women are more often affected in violations of it, via unwanted pregnancy, and limited access to contraception. These principles were addressed in the CCL Working Conference on Women's Rights as Human Rights. The conference defined bodily integrity as a right deserved by all women: "bodily integrity unifies women and that no woman can say that it does not apply to them". [16]

As defined by the conference participants, the following are bodily integrity rights that should be guaranteed to women:

Children's rights

United States

The debate over children's rights to bodily integrity has grown in recent years. [17] In the wake of the highly publicized Jerry Sandusky trial, [18] parents have been increasingly encouraged to promote their child's sense of bodily integrity as a method of reducing children's vulnerability to being victims of sexual violence, human trafficking and child prostitution. [19]

Methods of increasing children's sense of bodily autonomy include:

Medicine

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states the following: "No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation". [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The abortion debate is a longstanding, ongoing controversy that touches on the moral, legal, medical, and religious aspects of induced abortion. In English-speaking countries, the debate most visibly polarizes around adherents of the self-described "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. Pro-choice supporters uphold that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health, and that they should have the option to end a pregnancy if they choose to do so, taking into account various factors such as the stage of fetal development, the health of the mother, and the circumstances of the conception. Pro-life advocates, on the other hand, maintain that a fetus is a human being with inherent rights that cannot be overridden by the mother’s choice or circumstances, and that abortion is morally wrong in most or all cases. Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unborn Victims of Violence Act</span> Law that recognizes an embryo or fetus as a legal victim

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health that vary amongst countries around the world. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

J. Steven Svoboda is a patent lawyer who has been an attorney since 1991. Svoboda is the founder of the California-based organization, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. As an attorney, Svoboda is involved in educating, writing, and working with the United Nations on behalf of genital integrity issues. He also works as a patent lawyer.

Security of the person is a basic entitlement guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is also a human right explicitly defined and guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, the Constitution of Canada, the Constitution of South Africa and other laws around the world.

Fetal rights are the moral rights or legal rights of the human fetus under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion in the United States. The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal substance use disorders, including alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder. Most international human rights charters "clearly reject claims that human rights should attach from conception or any time before birth." While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9–0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion in Colombia</span>

Abortion in Colombia is freely available on request up to the 24th week of pregnancy, due to a ruling by the Constitutional Court on February 21, 2022. Later in pregnancy, it is only allowed in cases of risk of death to the pregnant woman, fetal malformation, or rape, according to a Constitutional Court ruling in 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yogyakarta Principles</span> Document about human rights in the areas of sexual orientation and gender identity

The Yogyakarta Principles is a document about human rights in the areas of sexual orientation and gender identity that was published as the outcome of an international meeting of human rights groups in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in November 2006. The principles were supplemented and expanded in 2017 to include new grounds of gender expression and sex characteristics and a number of new principles. However, the Principles have never been accepted by the United Nations (UN) and the attempt to make gender identity and sexual orientation new categories of non-discrimination has been repeatedly rejected by the General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a legal person has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex rights in Chile</span>

Since November 7, 2023, Chile bans unnecessary and non-consensual surgeries, procedures or medical treatments on intersex newborns, boys, girls and adolescents. Since March 15, 2022, Chile bans discrimination based on "sex characteristics" under Law 21,430 on Guarantees and Integral Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents. The country has the most advanced legal protection framework in Latin America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex human rights reports</span>

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex rights in Nepal</span>

In 2015, Nepal introduced constitutional recognition for "gender and sexual minorities". Despite this, the rights situation of intersex people in Nepal is unclear. Local activists have identified human rights violations, including significant gaps in protection of rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, and protection from discrimination. A first national meeting of intersex people look place in early 2016,Organised by First openly Intersex Rights Activist Esan Regmi in Nepal. with support from the UNDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex rights in Canada</span> Rights of intersex individuals in Canada

Intersex people in Canada have no recognition of their rights to physical integrity and bodily autonomy, and no specific protections from discrimination on the basis of sex characteristics. Academic advocates including Janik Bastien-Charlebois and Morgan Holmes, and organizations including Egale Canada and the Canadian Bar Association have called for reform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">My body, my choice</span> Feminist slogan for bodily autonomy

My body, my choice is a feminist slogan used in several countries, most often surrounding issues of bodily autonomy and abortion.

<i>Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Arun Kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration&Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.

<i>Ujjawal v. State of Haryana</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

References

  1. Miller, Ruth Austin (2007). The Limits of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, and Rape Legislation in Comparative Perspective. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN   9780754683391 . Retrieved 6 April 2021.
  2. Communication Technology And Social Change Carolyn A. Lin, David J. Atkin – 2007
  3. Civil Liberties and Human Rights Helen Fenwick, Kevin Kerrigan – 2011
  4. Xenotransplantation: Ethical, Legal, Economic, Social, Cultural Brigitte E.s. Jansen, Jürgen W. Simon, Ruth Chadwick, Hermann Nys, Ursula Weisenfeld – 2008
  5. Personal Autonomy, the Private Sphere and Criminal Law Peter Alldridge, Chrisje H. Brants - 2001, retrieved 29 May 2012
  6. Privacy law in Australia Carolyn Doyle, Mirko Bagaric – 2005
  7. Ryan v Attorney General [1965] 1 IR 294 at 295. Judgement by Kenny J: "That the general guarantee of personal rights in section 3 (1) of Art. 40 extends to rights not specified in Art. 40. One of the personal rights of the citizen protected by the general guarantee is the right to bodily integrity."
  8. "Right to Bodily Integrity". 11 February 2013. Archived from the original on 11 February 2013. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  9. Judgement by the Irish Supreme Court: M (Immigration - Rights of Unborn) -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors, 7 March 2018.
  10. "M (Immigration - Rights of Unborn) -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors : Judgments & Determinations : Courts Service of Ireland".
  11. "States with Legal Physician-Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia - ProCon.org". Euthanasia. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  12. "Missouri v. McNeely: The Loss of Bodily Integrity in an Emerging Police State". 15 January 2013.
  13. Totenberg, Nina; Chappell, Bill (27 June 2019). "Supreme Court Affirms Police Can Order Blood Drawn from Unconscious DUI Suspects". NPR.
  14. "琪琪布电影网". Archived from the original on 9 August 2013. Retrieved 23 February 2013.
  15. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 17
  16. 1 2 "Bodily Integrity and Security of Person". whr1998.tripod.com. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  17. Alderson, Patricia. Researching Children's Rights to Integrity in Children's Childhoods: Observed And Experienced. The Falmer Press, 1994.
  18. "Overheard on CNN.com: Are you a 'huggy' person? Would you make a child hug?". Archived from the original on 7 June 2021. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  19. Hetter, Katia (20 June 2012). "I don't own my child's body". CNN. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  20. "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". 5 July 2008. Archived from the original on 5 July 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2020.