Fight for your Right to Self-Circumcise!

I am required as part of my law course to write about voluntary euthanasia in the human rights context, particularly focusing on the challenge by Diane Pretty at the European Court a few years ago. I've only just started looking into it but have discovered a couple of gems.

The barrister for Ms Pretty was Philip Havers QC who advanced the argument that the issue was one about choice, and so was consistent with Article 2, the right to life. He later took part in the case in which Leslie Burke tried to enforce his living will not to be denied food and water. Havers showed the true level of his commitment to patient autonomy by representing the General Medical Council against Burke.

But the classic, and unsuccessful, argument was the one claiming discrimination, which runs like this. It is not illegal to commit suicide and so, by the ruthless logic of negative rights, we all have the right to kill ourselves. However, Ms. Pretty was denied this right because she was not physically able to do so, and it is illegal to assist suicide.

It strikes me that this chain of reasoning is rather odd. There are an infinite number of things that are not illegal and there surely cannot be a positive duty to ensure that disabled people have access to all of these negative rights, however tenuous. I almost wonder if a negative approach to rights can be compatible with disability equality at all.

Finally, here is a rather bizarre example. According to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, it is sensibly illegal to mutilate a woman's genitals, even if she gives her consent. However, the law remains silent on the issue of whether you are allowed to mutilate your own genitals, and so this is presumably perfectly legal and, therefore, a negatively-defined right. Does the Act therefore discriminate against disabled people who are incapable of such acts of self-mutilation, and should we fight for new legislation to plug this gap? I rather think not.