> If we accept that proving guilt in court is an appropriate reason to violate bodily autonomy than so too would saving the life of someone who's been endangered by your actions.

But we haven't decided that saving the life of someone who's been endangered by your actions is an appropriate reason to violate bodily autonomy. That's the whole point, society has decided that you can refuse to give the transfusion, even it leads to a death you essentially caused.

Society has already decided that proving guilt in a drunk driving case is a sufficient reason to violate bodily autonomy. I argue that saving a life is far more important than proving guilt for a fairly petty crime, therefore by the already accepted standard, it would be permissible to force the transfusion for this purpose.

> Do you think a suicidal pilot has the right to stop flying a plane mid-flight

Interesting example, but I don't think such a pilot whould cares about rights.

The better question might be - what could you do to force such a pilot to fly the plane, and it appears that you could only plead - they would not be afraid of being shot (which is illegal anyway), and torture is very clearly illegal.

I agree it would be difficult to force a pilot to fly a plane, in this way it's not quite analogous. However, imagine if by some miracle the plane is landed without the pilots help– passenger happens to be a pilot, stewardess talked over the radio how to execute a crash landing etc. Should the pilot be charged with any crime upon safely reaching the ground?