Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
In my reply to Wertheimer and Miller's paper on coercive offers and payment for research participation1 I claim that ‘… it's not unreasonable to suppose that there is another normative aspect to these cases, over and above the voluntariness of consent. While the parents of children at Willowbrook and the millionaire's mistress might have given consent that was voluntary and informed, they are still wronged by taking up this offer…’2 Furthermore, nowhere in my paper on surgical castration do I claim that coercive offers invalidate consent,3 and I suggest that Bomann-Larsen has come closest to cashing this out correctly with her idea that ‘the wrongness of these coercive offers has more to do with the wilful creation of choices that take advantage of others vulnerabilities…’.4 So, it is puzzling that they object to my analysis of coercion and castration because coercive offers are not readily unpacked as a problem with consent. …
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
- Feature article
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers
- Surgical castration, Texas law and the case of Mr T
- Offering castration to sex offenders: the significance of the state's intentions
- Surgical castration, coercion and ethics
- There are (STILL) no coercive offers
- Making the cut: analytical and empirical bioethics
- Chemical castration for sex offenders
- Neurointerventions and informed consent
- Drug treatment is proposed to manage child sex offenders
- Experimental interventions with sex offenders: a brief review of their efficacy