Article info
PDFNeuroethics
Paper
Should neurotechnological treatments offered to offenders always be in their best interests?
- Correspondence to Professor Thomas Søbirk Petersen, Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Roskilde DK-4000, Denmark; Thomassp{at}ruc.dk
Citation
Should neurotechnological treatments offered to offenders always be in their best interests?
Publication history
- Received December 8, 2016
- Revised March 28, 2017
- Accepted April 18, 2017
- First published May 15, 2017.
Online issue publication
December 18, 2017
Article Versions
- Previous version (15 May 2017).
- 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://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Other content recommended for you
- Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘freedom of thought’ objection
- Neurointerventions and informed consent
- A note on psychological continuity theories of identity and neurointerventions
- Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions
- Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges
- Surgical castration, coercion and ethics
- Criminal justice system contact and mortality among offenders with mental illness in British Columbia: an assessment of mediation
- Reducing the harmful effects of alcohol misuse: the ethics of sobriety testing in criminal justice
- Promoting health in prison
- What’s it all about, Alfie? Antisocial males in the early films of Sir Michael Caine