“Self-Ownership is a meaningful concept” by dakshinamurti.

“Consider medical ethic’s concept which is called autonomy. This concept relates to the right of the person to own his/her own body. For example this concept prohibits doctors to perform any operations or interventions in patient’s body without patient’s consent.”

I replied: Let’s deal with rational (hence conscious) people first. In the typical situation, a doctor has no desire to operate on a rational (hence conscious) person that has not first *asked* the doctor to have the operation done. It is not a question of permission, so much as a question of request. If no request is made, no operation is performed. I submit, therefore, that the proper characterization of this situation is: the person has control over his self, and can therefore decide whether or not to ask for an operation. Doing so implies consent on the part of the would-be patient and all that remains is for the physician to consent to perform the service. So there is no need to speak of the would-be patient “owning” his body: he controls his self (body and mind as one), i.e., he has liberty.

Now lets turn to the non-rational (perhaps unconscious) person: in such situations, neither the concept of “liberty” nor the (false) concept of “self-ownership” applies, because the person has no control of anything (i.e., not his self, and not any property). Others are in control while he is mentally incapacitated. He has no liberty and no property, politically speaking.

Leonid wrote:

It also prohibits medical experiments without consent. Nazi doctors have been tried and sentenced exactly for violation of autonomy principle.

I replied: In such situations, the victim is deprived of control of his self. He is deprived of liberty. Property (e.g., “self-ownership”), I submit, has nothing to do with it…even if one chooses to call such an invalid concept a “principle”: as I say to my clients, “I can point to a dog and say cat, but that does not make the dog a cat”.

Leonid wrote:

From other hand this principle allows termination of medical treatment and even euthanasia, if that what patient wants. This principle is also represents moral ground for abortion. So self-ownership or autonomy is definitely valid concept.

I replied: With respect, I don’t see why it is desirable (much less appropriate or necessary) to introduce a proprietary notion into what is a simple exercise of liberty. The person who chooses to terminate medical treatment, to die, or to have an abortion is simply exercising her liberty. The foetus is not “owned” by her any more than her left leg is “owned” by her. The foetus and leg are parts of her self…until they cease to be a part of her body.

Leonid wrote:

I’d agree,however, that autonomy principle is a part of the much wider concept of liberty.

I replied: If so, there’s no need to refer to alleged “self-ownership”.

One: The use of the word ‘my’ is NOT used to distinguish ourselves from others around us for most of our dialogue is internal and private anyway and if I burn my hand on a hot rock on my desert island I will still not say “I” hand but will probably say “Ouch, MY **** hand hurts!”

Two: Since the quantum physicists say all reality is via conscious intent only it follows that there’s really nobody outside us at all! Any of us!

Fascinating commentaries and thought-provoking – there must of course be a distinction between the body and ‘who’ WE ‘are’! We make this distinction every moment when we say: “MY hand” or “MY leg” meaning the hand and/or leg BELONGING to me! We NEVER say “I hand” or “I leg”. We identify the difference between “us” as we conceive ourselves to truly be and our bodies over which we therefore must have ownership.

I replied:

Imagine that you were living all alone on an island. Saying “my” hand would be a bit redundant, don’t you think?

“My” is used to distinguish oneself from others, not to distinguish ones body from ones mind; not to distinguish the allegedly owned from the alleged owner.