I agree, it is risky, in this example consent makes the difference between going to prison for the rest of your life or facing no consequences at all.
As we know, consent can be a fickle and hard to prove thing even when both parties are still alive to tell their story. If one of them is dead, then I don't think there's any way justice could ever be served.
I think in these instances, you get better outcomes erring on the side of a rule that just bans it altogether.
Your rule would have to be interestingly drafted to navigate around:
- Abortion
- Risky medical procedures, esp cosmetic ones
- "Bug chasing"
- Euthanasia
The above to one side, I, respectfully, cannot agree with the logic of blanket banning anything preemptively "just to be safe". Consensual (or apparently-consensual) murder is so rare that when/if it comes up - just give the case to a jury to hear the facts in evidence and decide if they believe the consent was valid.
(This is an example of why I believe precedent-based law is superior to legislation-based law)
