If a competent adult possesses the Charter right to *refuse* life-saving medical treatment, does that right logically extend to the right to *provide* complex surgical treatment for themselves? We examine the legal gap.
Analyzing *Carter v. Canada* and Section 7 Charter rights, which struck down blanket prohibitions on end-of-life autonomy. Does this expansion create an implicit right to self-surgery?
Reviewing *Malette v. Shulman* and *Ciarlariello v. Schacter*. The established right to refuse even life-saving care underscores absolute control over bodily integrity.
Where does the state draw the line? Exploring the *R. v. Jobidon* ruling, which held that consent is generally no defense to assault causing serious bodily harm, even to oneself.
"Canadian law says you have the right to **refuse** to eat at any restaurant, even if you're starving. Does that automatically mean you have the right to **cook for yourself** in your own unlicensed kitchen, even if you risk getting food poisoning? The legal gap is whether the right to refuse expert care is the same as the right to provide self-care."
— Simplified Doctrinal Tension