ABSTRACT
All those in clinical professions seek consent for what would otherwise be an unlawful touch. In a criminal appeal case, a registered tattooist and piercer included ‘body modification’ in his public offering. He found himself charged with three charges of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm since he had removed an ear and a nipple, and split a third customer's tongue into the forked reptilian style. The court noted that if any of these customers had performed the procedure upon themselves, no crime would have been committed. Nonetheless, the judges could find no reason why body modification should be equated to surgery. For the non-surgeon, consent provides no defence to the person who inflicts violence causing actual bodily harm or a more serious injury. Since this case provides evidence that consent is not sufficient to make serious injury lawful, it also confirms that proper medical treatment, with consent as a prerequisite, is in a category of its own.
