On the other hand... the guy has been dead for a while, and it could be medically relevant.
Steal a guy's ring from his casket after 50 years of burial and you're a graverobber.
Steal a guy's ring from his casket after 500 years of burial and you're a respected archaeologist.
:shrug:
Look, I don't think absolutes are any good. Not in one way and not in the other.
Let's take typhoid mary as an example.
Typhoid Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When Typhoid Mary died after many years of involuntary confinement, autopsy showed she was indeed an a-symptomatic carrier of the disease. She was not sick, and rejected all requests for her to be tested. After her first quarantaine, she schanged her name and again spread disease and death.
She spent the rest of her life in quarantaine when she was found for the second time, still denying there was anything wrong, still rejecting tests. So she was really involuntary detained, with only circumstantial evidence.
Was it wrong to violate her rights and thus save countless lives?
Or would it have been right to respect her privacy and destroy countless lives?