Article info
PDFStudent essay
Redefining liberty: is natural inability a legitimate constraint of liberty?
- Correspondence to Zahra Ladan, The University of Manchester Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; zahraladan2{at}gmail.com
Citation
Redefining liberty: is natural inability a legitimate constraint of liberty?
Publication history
- Received July 4, 2020
- Revised August 31, 2020
- Accepted September 4, 2020
- First published October 1, 2020.
Online issue publication
December 22, 2020
Article Versions
- Previous version (1 October 2020).
- 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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- β1 - adrenergic antagonists improve sleep and behavioural disturbances in a circadian disorder, Smith - Magenis syndrome
- Is supervised community treatment ethically justifiable
- β1 - adrenergic antagonists and melatonin reset the clock and restore sleep in a circadian disorder, Smith - Magenis syndrome
- Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation
- Genotype – phenotype correlation of 30 patients with Smith - Magenis syndrome (SMS) using comparative genome hybridisation array: cleft palate in SMS is associated with larger deletions
- Ethics and SARS: lessons from Toronto
- From Chaos to Coercion: Detention and the Control of Tuberculosis
- Melatonin supplementation for severe and intractable sleep disturbance in young people with genetically determined developmental disabilities: short review and commentary
- The right to public health
- Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘ freedom of thought ’ objection