Article info
PDFCommentary
Offering castration to sex offenders: the significance of the state's intentions
- Correspondence to School of Law, University of Aberdeen, Taylor Building, Aberdeen AB24 3UB, Scotland; eshaw{at}abdn.ac.uk
Citation
Offering castration to sex offenders: the significance of the state's intentions
Publication history
- Received June 27, 2013
- Accepted July 11, 2013
- First published July 30, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers
- Surgical castration, coercion and ethics
- Neurointerventions and informed consent
- Surgical castration, Texas law and the case of Mr T
- Chemical castration for sex offenders
- There are (STILL) no coercive offers
- Making the cut: analytical and empirical bioethics
- Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘freedom of thought’ objection
- Should neurotechnological treatments offered to offenders always be in their best interests?
- Surgical castration, coercive offers and coercive effects: it is still not about consent