Historically, the law rejects people’s right to own their own body. Granted that this were the case, we as humans would possess the ability to auction our body in circumstances such as prostitution, slavery and organ trade. This would also provide us with the right to destroy our body; however this was prohibited and considered a violation of the law until the 1961 Suicide Act. We as humans, have the right to make decisions about our health, body, sexuality and reproductively. Nonetheless, throughout the world people are regularly restricted in this area of rights; being constantly thwarted by social attitudes, state and government agenda.

Medicine regularly challenges this concern regarding ownership. The consideration  of former parts of our body as our property, was evidenced in the Yearworth case. Here, the claimants deposited semen samples prior to undergoing chemotherapy (that may result in their infertility) suffered from psychiatric injury upon finding out that the hospital had misplaced or damaged their samples. In this case, the initial concern was that they would be unable to make a personal injury claim due to the fact that the semen was no longer a part of their body. A conclusion from the court, in this case led to the ability to make a personal injury claim; the claimants were in control of the semen, resulting in an ownership relationship. In the light of this case and particularly the recognition of ownership, it comes into question where the exceptions to the law’s attitude on ownership lies regarding former and present parts of our body.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to control over our bodies?  Where should courts draw the line on this prominent issue? This is concerning in regards to transplantations, control of one’s organs and to whom the cadaveric donations should go to.

We have no right to control what happens to our body after death; we merely have preferences made prior to death. Funeral wishes are not legally binding, therefore leaving us with no ownership of our body. In the case of transplants, the organs are required to go anonymously and impartially to the most compatible person at the top of the waiting list (regardless of any wishes  of the cadaveric donor). As a result of the Human Tissue Act of 2004, consent is obligatory before the removal, disposal or use of body parts, organs or any human tissue. Despite this act you are unable to insist upon being a donor for a particular person; transplant teams are legally unable to accept organs that come with conditions. Indeed, this is evidenced in the case of Laura Ashwood; after dying at age 21 her kidneys were given to complete strangers despite her specific wish to donate them to her mother suffering from kidney failure. Contrastingly, an owner’s wishes regarding property are absolute, there is no obligation to destroy such property if wishes are not made prior to the death of the owner. This is unlike that of the cadaveric organs- unless a distribution agreement is made beforehand. However, bodies are not legally considered to be property and therefore do not require ownership. Legal attitudes must be questioned nevertheless. Thus taking technological advancement into consideration, as the ability to donate specific body parts are increasing, so should the laws regarding our personal ownership and right to control such body parts.

Globally, the concerns regarding ownership of one’s body are dire. In the case of Burkina Faso, bodily rights including sexual and reproductive autonomy are disregarded on a huge scale; this imperative right of freedom is restricted and controlled by the state. These rights include the ability to make decisions concerning their health, body, sexual life and identity devoid of fear, coercion or criminalisation.  Here ownership is not necessary, but the right to control their body is integral. Free choice regarding women’s own bodies in Burkina Faso is not an option; a staggering 52% of girls in marry before age 18 whist 17% of women use contraceptives, this is one of the lowest rates in the world resulting in an average of 6 children per family. Burkina Faso’s circumstances are a product of a male dominant, patriarchal society, in which women’s rights are overruled by traditional and social attitudes of the state government. Rape survivors must pay for their own emergency care, women may be denied contraception if it is against their husband’s wishes. Hence making this case a direct defiance of not only ownership of one’s body, but their authoritative position. This therefore calls into question, the extent to which people’s ownership can be legally denied, in light of the awful of ongoing situations around the world.

For example Maria aged 17 in Burkina Faso was a victim of forced marriage; married to a 70 year old man at the hands of her father’s violent threats; Maria is refused the right to own control her body. Despite this being a necessary human right, the inequality of the sexes results in a lack of women’s right to chose. Abuse is often a direct consequence of this discrimination, the girl’s rights to education and health care, most notably sexual and reproductive health care are compromised. This unlawful matter is a product of traditional social attitudes restricting women’s right to control or own the rights to their body.

Culturally all around the world, the issue of body ownership is pressing. The historic legal position refusing the ownership of one’s body, appears to be highly restrictive in today’s age of technology and medical advancement. Human control over property is a vital aspect of law; hence the meaning of property and where our body falls under this description is something that may be altered in the future. This human right to ownership relies on the monitorisation of illegal activities whilst not infringing upon our autonomy.