Historical evolution and modern implications of concepts of consent to, and refusal of, medical treatment in the law of trespass

It has been suggested that the whole of the private law may be regarded as the law of consent. The law of torts is based on the principle that subject to the law of the land, no one has the right to interfere with another person's physical and economic integrity and freedom without that person's consent. This article examines the historical and jurisprudential evolution of the concept of consent in the law of trespass to person with an emphasis on issues associated with consent to, and refusal of, medical treatment. Consent to treatment and refusal of treatment have been regarded merely as obverse sides of the same coin. One of the premises of this article is that the law is inconsistent insofar as it considers consent to be a relative value while regarding refusal as an absolute and inalienable right.