3 ms·
Body modification artist charged with GBH, despite written consent
- turblety 8y agoOnce again the government trying to control what consenting adults do to/with their body.
- LinuxBender 8y agoWill the outcome be the same when people want to implant chips / computers in their body to augment their reality or restore/change functionality?
- MiddleEndian 8y agoProbably, yes. Bodily autonomy is not well-respected by most governments.
- inersha 8y agoA friend of mine stretched her ears and went to Dr. Evil to have them sown up. He did a great job, and it cost £200. This is not available on the NHS and probably would have cost thousands (for someone with less experience in the same procedure). Such a shame to see this. Dr. Evil is a good guy.
- mindcrime 8y agoBut the judge, Amjad Nawaz, ruled that the registered tattooist could not use his clients’ written permission as a defence. This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard in my life. We own our bodies, and the State has absolutely zero standing to regulate what we can do to our own bodies, or what we can allow someone else to do. The problem in this story is the State, and not "Dr Evil".
- ajhurliman 8y agoI'm a little confused as to who even submitted the case if the procedures were consensual. Did a LEO just see someone without an ear one day and grill them about it?
- slowmovintarget 8y agoThe distinction here is actually a ruling that the defendant performed medical procedures without medical cause, and that body modification (like removal of an ear) is not the same as body adornment (like tattooing or piercing). The law there labels this assault, which may not actually be consented to.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoRemoving an ear? Splitting a tongue? His customers had mental problems. You might ask: Would you split your 20 year old child's tongue in half or cut off their ear? Then why would you do somebody else's? For normal decent people, it takes some sort of learned desensitization to do this to somebody. Like the way soldiers kill other people.