Does this mean "no consent given for the medication" or "medication that is not part of an agreed consensus"?
If the former, then there are literally tons of occurrences of this everywhere.
I am also not sure of the implications that it entails. If I find someone injured on the street, and he tells me he does not want help, would it then be against the law for me to discard his instructions and help him?
Are there specific types of situations you're thinking about? Outside of cases where the patient is unable to provide consent (minority, mental incapacity, unconscious in exigent circumstances), I believe this is largely followed in the US, at least. Childhood vaccines, for example, are optional if you don't want to attend public (or many private) schools.
The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (although some may deny certain government services to people who are unvaccinated). Without a strong commitment to human rights, there's nothing to stop the next racist dictator who comes along from sterilising ethnicities or political groups he doesn't like (as is allegedly happening in Xinjiang).
I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights.
Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins.
Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn't to make false claims about the safety of your food product.
Rights are "unconditioned where possible" and where they conflict, it's an appropriate place for societies to debate their merits, metes, and bounds.
Extended to unwanted medical treatment... imagine Joe CRISPR'ed himself a gene that improved his eyesight, but also caused him to emit bromine gas that kills 90% of people who come within 100 feet of him. To date, Joe has killed thousands of people with his gas cloud. Society might rightly deem that he was infringing on their right to life and that that negative right was more important than Joe's negative right not to be forced into the reversing medical procedure.
Somewhere on the spectrum between "bromine gas cloud" and "germs for the sniffles", there's probably a condition Joe could have for which Joe's right to avoid unwanted medial treatment and society's right to not be needlessly kiled are really evenly balanced. Maybe it's ebola. Maybe it's covid... or measels, or the seasonal flu.
The right not to be forced into medical treatments is important and should be talked about, but to cast it as a right and therefore unconditioned and inviolate is to dodge the important societal debate.
Wouldn’t that require some kind of nuclear reaction/alchemy? I don’t think anything humans are normally exposed to contains bromine.
A strong commitment to human rights doesn't mean rights are non-conditional, so you're moving the goalpost to make a slippery slope argument. Anyways, laws are what can stop these things from happening. Yes, some laws go hand-in-hand with human(e.g. universal suffrage), some don't (e.g, conflicts of interest laws)
From the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/):
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"
Note the word "inalienable".
Or if you don't like the UN, there's the US declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The whole point of countries having a supreme court and constitution is to enforce the unconditionality of such rights.
Yes it's a political position held by some nowadays that human rights are just a legal fiction granted by the government or "society", but that's not how the nation's founders saw it.
Individual rights can (and IMO should) be abridged when it impedes on the greater good.