Consent

• Point 1

  • Interference with peoples choice, r v brown,
  • But, where is the line drawn, would people be able to consent to death, intimidation for victims, morally and socially unacceptable
• Point 2

  • R v Brown/ R v Wilson, same injury, one guilty the other not, one needed treatment the other didnt
  • But, R v Wilson came under tattooing, also morality, one was in private between husband and wife, the other less morally acceptable between 5 men with no exclusion
• Point 3

  • Horseplay, allowed even if rough play lead to serious harm, r v Jones, even if D believed V consented when they didn't
  • But, D may make an honest mistake, R v Aitken, also it is hard to define and make rules, without this defence it wouldnt exist and society would be blamed for the over-protectiveness
• Point 4

  • Sport, why should someone be subjected to injury when they are playing sport
  • But, it has to be within the rules of the game, otherwise sport would be too risky and banned, still unlawful outside the rules of the game
• Point 5

  • euthanasia, a person who helps a terminal ill person will be prosecuted and will not be allowed the defence, Pretty 2001
  • But, may be morally wrong, and hard to know if it was genuine if the person is dead
• Reforms

  • dpp guidelines on assissted suicide, may allow in cases of true consent and compassion