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
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions
- Should neurotechnological treatments offered to offenders always be in their best interests?
- Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘freedom of thought’ objection
- The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers
- Preventing sexual abusers of children from reoffending: systematic review of medical and psychological interventions
- Chemical castration for sex offenders
- Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control
- Treatment for sexual offenders against children
- Public participation in genetic databases: crossing the boundaries between biobanks and forensic DNA databases through the principle of solidarity
- Right to mental integrity and neurotechnologies: implications of the extended mind thesis