Article Text
Abstract
It is widely believed that informed consent must be obtained from a patient for it to be morally permissible to administer to him/her a medical intervention. The same has been argued for the use of neurointerventions administered to criminal offenders. Arguments in favour of a consent requirement for neurointerventions can take two forms. First, according to absolutist views, neurointerventions should never be administered without an offender’s informed consent. However, I argue that these views are ultimately unpersuasive. The second, and more plausible, form defences of the consent requirement may take are more moderate in that they accept the use of neurointerventions in some (rare) cases, but not in (most) others. Based on common rationales for consent in medical interventions, I discuss whether four moderate approaches in defence of the informed consent requirement for medical interventions succeed in establishing that informed consent must be obtained from offenders prior to administering neurointerventions to them. I offer novel critical perspectives on approaches that have already received some attention in the literature (ie, bodily integrity and harm), and I critically discuss other approaches to defending informed consent in a medical context that have not yet received due attention (ie, self-ownership and trust). Ultimately, I argue that it is not obvious that any of these considerations support a requirement of offenders’ informed consent to neurointerventions. Lastly, however, I suggest that there is at least one overlooked fact as regards how courts currently employ mandatory neurointerventions, which may support such a requirement.
- informed consent
- neuroethics
- criminal law
- prisoners
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Sebastian Jon Holmen is the sole author of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work.
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:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Should neurotechnological treatments offered to offenders always be in their best interests
- Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions
- Parental offending and children ’s emergency department presentations in New South Wales, Australia
- Chemical castration for sex offenders
- Mandatory addiction treatment for people who use drugs: global health and human rights analysis
- Preventing sexual abusers of children from reoffending: systematic review of medical and psychological interventions
- Indian medical experts shun chemical castration for rapists
- Improved naming after transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia
- Effects of multisession transcranial direct current stimulation as an augmentation to cognitive tasks in patients with neurocognitive disorders in Japan: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
- The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers