Mandatory neurotechnological treatment: ethical issues

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (1):59-72 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

What if neurofeedback or other types of neurotechnological treatment, by itself or in combination with behavioral treatment, could achieve a successful “rewiring” of the psychopath’s brain? Imagine that such treatments exist and that they provide a better long-term risk-minimizing strategy compared to imprisonment. Would it be ethical to offer such treatments as a condition of probation, parole, or prison release? In this paper, I argue that it can be ethical to offer effective, non-invasive neurotechnological treatments to offenders as a condition of probation, parole, or prison release provided that: the status quo is in no way cruel, inhuman, degrading, or in some other way wrong, the treatment option is in no way cruel, inhuman, degrading, or in some other way wrong, the treatment is in the best interests of the offender, and the offender gives his/her informed consent.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What is Inhuman Treatment?Kevin J. Murtagh - 2012 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (1):21-30.
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves.Jeremy Waldron - 2010 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):269-286.
Punishment, Pharmacological Treatment, and Early Release.Jesper Ryberg - 2012 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):231-244.
The Comparative Nature of Punishment.Adam J. Kolber - 2009 - Boston University Law Review 89 (5):1565-1608.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-12

Downloads
59 (#261,735)

6 months
9 (#250,037)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Farah Focquaert
University of Ghent