Parallels are rarely exact. It's hard to make all principles of one thing match all principals of another. In this last case, we are talking about the consent and implied consent issue. You are now trying to conflate it with other issues. Keep the issues separate. So given that, lets just say, for the sake of argument, that in one unique case, the repair of a broken bone would indeed cause injury to a person other then the one with the broken bone. Would you not agree that the point of their implied consent to the potential of a broken bone by engaging in the activity still did not constitute consent for it to remain broken, even though they might not be allowed to correct the break due to the harm to another? Now as to the new principle that you are introducing. I have actually been building up to that, but you are forestalling that in your refusal to show me where I have only a privilege with my own body as opposed to a right. Again, I do not have an automatic right to anything external to my body, and such is not my argument. Once I have your answer to that, then we can move on to the other principal.