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
- Brain injury and deprivation of liberty on neurosciences wards: ‘a gilded cage is still a cage’
- Identifying and managing deprivation of liberty in adults in England and Wales
- Ethics briefing
- Ethics briefing
- Ethics briefing
- Is supervised community treatment ethically justifiable?
- Deprivation of liberty in healthcare
- Inquests into patients who die while under a deprivation of liberty order
- Neither consenting nor protesting: an ethical analysis of a man with autism
- Reforming DoLS: liberty protection safeguards