Children's autonomy includes, as far as possible, self-determination, bodily integrity and the right to influence outcomes. Limits to bodily integrity, which involves no touching without the child's consent or tacit agreement, are discussed. The clinical, legal and ethics literature tends to agree that children may give valid consent to major recommended treatment from around 12 years but may not refuse it until they are legal adults. Research shows that young children are more aware of their bodily integrity and autonomy, of (...) morality and decision making, than was assumed in the past. Adults therefore need to inform children and respect their initially instinctive efforts to protect their bodily integrity. Unlike assent, consent involves patients being adequately informed and being able to accept or refuse proposed treatment. Reasons are given for adults’ need to consult with children when determining their best interests. Beyond words, giving or withholding consent also involves emotions of fear, trust and courage, besides embodied reactions of cooperating with treatment or resisting it, in which young children actively engage. Some clinicians work with the informed cooperation of young children who need lifesaving treatment, and at times accept their refusal. Reasons for differences between mainstream experts’ views and clinical practices are considered. (shrink)

This chapter sides with those who believe that a right to stay should be counted among fundamental human rights. However, it also acknowledges that there are good reasons for objecting to the most popular justifications of the right to stay, which are based on the assumption that people have valuable ties to their community of residence and that people’s life plans are located where they live. In response to these qualms, this chapter argues that the best way to make sense (...) of the right to stay is to conceive it as belonging to the category of “control rights”; these are the rights that protect people’s control over their own bodies and personal space, which is an essential condition for personhood and human dignity. This account of the right to stay can overcome the most pressing objections to its recognition as a fundamental human right. (shrink)

This paper presents a social-theologically informed interpretation of the term integrity, as it occurs in fundamental law. It explores the manifestations of integrity violations and proceeds to draw an inference: an integrity violation can directly emanate from a misconception regarding integrity itself, as well as the implementation of protective measures that follow it. Integrity in its wholeness dimension is understood as open-endedness and non-seclusion rather than as a substantial, clearly definable characteristic of a person. This open-endedness and non-seclusion results from (...) the relational constitution of an individual. Consequently, it follows that a violation of integrity occurs when the open-endedness and non-seclusion of a person and their relational Becoming is hindered. The new definition of integrity is particularly important when it comes to the governance of new health technologies, especially Digital Twins that can become representatives of a person. Human integrity is non-violated only when it is understood as open to relational Becoming and this Becoming shows its expression in the mutual enabling and support of self-articulation. (shrink)