ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author discusses that the concepts of harm and consent are not quite as detached from each other as they may appear. It describes that a party's assertion about harm by definition entails some assertion about the actor's consent to incur the harm. Every assertion about harm entails some assertion about consent. Ordinarily the concepts of 'harm' and 'consent' are thought to be entirely distinct. An assertion of non-consent in fact or invalid consent in law is then ipso facto an assertion of sufficient harm. The question as to the harm caused by physician-assisted suicide—death—differs from the question as to whether the individual validly consents to incur that harm. Even where the harm is not expressly defined with reference to consent, the Sufficient Harm Axiom applies. Yet the government's concern for their lives is itself an instance of a broader public interest in preserving human life.
