If I understand the distinction correctly, my freedom of religion example is a conflict between two negative rights (the prohibition on preventing a religious p

If I understand the distinction correctly, my freedom of religion example is a conflict between two negative rights (the prohibition on preventing a religious practitioner's worship versus the prohibition on taking the unwilling virgin's life). Extended to unwanted medical treatment... imagine Joe CRISPR'ed himself a gene that improved his eyesight, but also caused him to emit bromine gas that kills 90% of people who come within 100 feet of him. To date, Joe has killed thousands of people with his gas cloud. Society might rightly deem that he was infringing on their right to life and that that negative right was more important than Joe's negative right not to be forced into the reversing medical procedure. Somewhere on the spectrum between "bromine gas cloud" and "germs for the sniffles", there's probably a condition Joe could have for which Joe's right to avoid unwanted medial treatment and society's right to not be needlessly kiled are really evenly balanced. Maybe it's ebola. Maybe it's covid... or measels, or the seasonal flu. The right not to be forced into medical treatments is important and should be talked about, but to cast it as a right and therefore unconditioned and inviolate is to dodge the important societal debate.