Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi,

Dakka is an international community, so I thought I'd posit this question to its members. In England, as of the }]Laskey vs the UK trial in 1997, it has been in precedent that consent cannot be given to physical harm - basically, you cannot consent to being injured by a second party.

I was wondering (a case of academic curiosity) if similar laws exists in other countries.

Thank you for your knowledge.

Not being familiar with the case you mention at all, I have a hard time imagining "that consent cannot be given to physical harm" was its consequence - as far as I'm aware, physicians still do surgery in the UK, and football players still don't go to jail for injuring opponents during regular play.

Regardless, to try and answer the question: In the German-speaking countries, you can consent to injury as long as

a) it is "reasonable" (by and large a construction to limit consent to grave injury) and

b) does not violate "ordre public".

Germany is handling "reason" rather strictly, as shown in the recent ruling of the Landgericht Köln regarding the legality of religiously motivated circumcisions. Austria grants most leeway on this account - as long as grave injury is not an end unto itself, you can consent to everything but death. This is tempered by Austria's pronounced (too pronounced, IMHO) emphasis on ordre public, which, for illustration, results in a limited ability to consent to certain sadomasochistic sexual practices.

Switzerland alone limits consent to grave injury to medical procedures, though it has to be mentioned that it defines "grave injury" differently than Germany and Austria, adding an element of malicious intent, so the results are similar to the situation in Germany and Austria after all. "Ordre public" only plays a small role, being restricted to violations also persecuted through their criminal code.

Hope this helps. If you want a more in-depth answer, I would need you to get a little more specific with your question.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US we have a MASSIVE BDSM culture, filled with all manner of people from all manner of professions, law very much included.

While certain states may have laws close to what you describe, most forward thinking states do not. While it may be necessary for parties to document consent and limits to that consent(which while not legally binding by itself does strengthen ones case against a lawsuit) most any consent can be granted concerning physical contact up to a certain degree of harm(chopping off pieces would still be illegal, regardless of consent, unless we're talking foreskin).

Plenty of people are into physical pain for pleasure, and if we tried to ban that the streets would run red with ball gags and leather as a tide of kinky Americans overthrow the government for trying to dictate what two consenting people do in private(which is an important distinction to make).

I have a hard time believing that the UK can be any less kinky than the US, or that there have been many cases using that single suit as precedent.

For that matter then, do full contact sports like Boxing or MMA not exist in the UK? As those are 2 VERY mainstream examples of consent to imminent physical harm, generally exceeding harm caused by more recreational activites.

Well, Rugby is a huge thing in the UK and people are regularly injured in that.

The intent isn't the injure though. Also you aren't really giving consent to be injured by playing rugby.

 Aerethan wrote:
I don't know about the UK, but here in the US we have a MASSIVE BDSM culture, filled with all manner of people from all manner of professions, law very much included.

While certain states may have laws close to what you describe, most forward thinking states do not. While it may be necessary for parties to document consent and limits to that consent(which while not legally binding by itself does strengthen ones case against a lawsuit) most any consent can be granted concerning physical contact up to a certain degree of harm(chopping off pieces would still be illegal, regardless of consent, unless we're talking foreskin).

Plenty of people are into physical pain for pleasure, and if we tried to ban that the streets would run red with ball gags and leather as a tide of kinky Americans overthrow the government for trying to dictate what two consenting people do in private(which is an important distinction to make).

I have a hard time believing that the UK can be any less kinky than the US, or that there have been many cases using that single suit as precedent.

For that matter then, do full contact sports like Boxing or MMA not exist in the UK? As those are 2 VERY mainstream examples of consent to imminent physical harm, generally exceeding harm caused by more recreational activites.

Forward thinking states? Seriously?

 purplefood wrote:
Also you aren't really giving consent to be injured by playing rugby.

What is "really" giving consent? Consent is a little like pregnancy: it's either there or it isn't.

Everybody involved with Rugby understands that they are likely to be injured and continue anyway. In fact shouldn't they be signing some form of agreement to say that whoever they are playing for isn't liable for their injury? Is that not consent?

 Allod wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Also you aren't really giving consent to be injured by playing rugby.

What is "really" giving consent? Consent is a little like pregnancy: it's either there or it isn't.

It means you aren't really giving consent to be injured. Meaning you aren't. I would have thought that was obvious but it clearly wasn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Everybody involved with Rugby understands that they are likely to be injured and continue anyway. In fact shouldn't they be signing some form of agreement to say that whoever they are playing for isn't liable for their injury? Is that not consent?

They understand that what they are doing may cause them injury but you do not play with the intent to injure someone. That's why they teach people who to tackle properly, so they don't hurt themselves or others. There are also several rules to stop people being hurt. If someone is injured badly it's an accident. If someone intentionally causes an injury i'm reasonably sure it's against the rules.

 purplefood wrote:

It means you aren't really giving consent to be injured. Meaning you aren't. I would have thought that was obvious but it clearly wasn't.

In this case, you are simply wrong. You consent to (unintentional) injury every single time you participate in contact sports. That's why those injuries are not illegal, and you can not claim damages for them.

Or did you mean to say that you do not consent to INTENTIONAL injury (which you call assault, I believe)?

Here is my first problem with the dogma that you cannot give consent to harm:



As boxing in the UK has continued since 1997 it seems the ruling hasn't much effect or a specified exemption was made.

I cannot take that pic serious...."Khan" above his crotch and the other guy got a name across his butt....and frills....lots of frills

Well, before I play at a Quidditch tournament every time I have to sign a little waiver that basically states "I or my next of kin agree not to sue the organizes of this event for any injury resulting from my participation in said event up to and including loss of life."

Sounds a lot like consent to be harmed (or to cause harm as the case may be...)

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well, before I play at a Quidditch tournament every time I have to sign a little waiver that basically states "I or my next of kin agree not to sue the organizes of this event for any injury resulting from my participation in said event up to and including loss of life."

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well, before I play at a Quidditch tournament I have to sign a little waiver

 dementedwombat wrote:
Quidditch tournament

 Platuan4th wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well, before I play at a Quidditch tournament every time I have to sign a little waiver that basically states "I or my next of kin agree not to sue the organizes of this event for any injury resulting from my participation in said event up to and including loss of life."

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well, before I play at a Quidditch tournament I have to sign a little waiver

 dementedwombat wrote:
Quidditch tournament

Thank you for that, you just made me snort my coffee.

Also, this seems like one of those silly laws like making suicide illegal. Yeah, that'll stop them from doing it!

It's legit man. Kinda halfway between rugby and dodgeball. And yes I will freely admit it looks ridiculous to watch.

Looks like a harry potter convention from this side of the channel.

 dementedwombat wrote:
It's legit man. Kinda halfway between rugby and dodgeball. And yes I will freely admit it looks ridiculous to watch.

Oh, I'm well aware of the existence of organized Quidditch, LSU had an unofficial team. It was more the absurdity of it showing up in this thread.

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well, before I play at a Quidditch tournament every time I have to sign a little waiver that basically states "I or my next of kin agree not to sue the organizes of this event for any injury resulting from my participation in said event up to and including loss of life."

Sounds a lot like consent to be harmed (or to cause harm as the case may be...)

I don't think Health & Safety means much to the wizarding world, in fact the legislation is probably the opposite to the rest of the UK.
"Your house doesn't look dodgy and dangerous enough, here is an order to have it demolished."