Public health and private lives.

The common law of England has consistently affirmed a doctrine of bodily integrity which makes no distinction between degrees of violence and prohibits unauthorised touchings. The evolution of the laws of assault and battery into a coherent legal doctrine affirming and protecting patient autonomy in medical treatment is nonetheless of relatively recent origin and remains flawed in its detail. The adoption in Sidaway v. Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital* of the professional standard to govern information disclosure deprives patients on occasion of the information crucial to a maximally autonomous choice. However, two principles are now crystal clear. First, any treatment involving physical contact with a competent adult must be expressly authorised by her. If a health professional acts without consent (save in emergency), or exceeds the consent given by the patient, he commits a civil battery and a criminal assault. It is no defence that he proves that he acted in what he believed to be the patient's best interests. Secondly, the patient's right to prohibit treatment extends even to lifesaving treatment. The state has no right or power to intervene to protect patients from themselves. Lord Donaldson M.R. declared in ReT: