Neuroethics 6 (1):65-77 (2013)

Abstract
Criminal offenders may be offered to participate in voluntary rehabilitation programs aiming at correcting undesirable behaviour, as a condition of early release. Behavioural treatment may include direct intervention into the central nervous system (CNS). This article discusses under which circumstances voluntary rehabilitation by CNS intervention is justified. It is argued that although the context of voluntary rehabilitation is a coercive circumstance, consent may still be effective, in the sense that it can meet formal criteria for informed consent. Further, for a consent to be normatively valid (“take the wronging out of the act”) under a coercive circumstance, the subject to be treated must (1) have the sovereign authority to consent, and (2) the offer-giver must be in the right normative position to make the offer. While I argue that subjects do have the sovereign authority to consent to treatment, I also argue that inappropriate offers yield invalid consents. Considerations on inappropriate offers should therefore inform which kinds of CNS intervention-based rehabilitation schemes the state may propose as part of the criminal justice system. Yet as I conclude in this paper, while there are some intrinsic constraints on voluntary rehabilitation programs, the main constraints on voluntary rehabilitation are likely to be contingent overriders. However, CNS intervention is not ruled out as such in the context of voluntary rehabilitation
Keywords Voluntary rehabilitation  CNS intervention  Autonomy  Valid consent  (In)appropriate offers
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-011-9105-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,262
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st Century.Neil Levy - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
The Concept of Moral Obligation.Michael J. Zimmerman - 1996 - Cambridge University Press.
The Idea Of An Overlapping Consensus.John Rawls - 1987 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7 (1):1-25.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Neuroethics Beyond Normal.John R. Shook & James Giordano - 2016 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 25 (1):121-140.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Rehabilitation of Impaired Awareness.Mark Sherer - 2005 - In Walter M. Jr. High, Angelle M. Sander, Margaret A. Struchen & Karen A. Hart (eds.), Rehabilitation for Traumatic Brain Injury. Oxford University Press. pp. 31-46.
Non-Voluntary Sterilization.Torbjörn Tännsjö - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (4):401 – 415.
Awareness and Knowing: Implications for Rehabilitation.Peter W. Halligan - 2006 - Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 16 (4):456-473.
Consent and Informational Responsibility.Shaun D. Pattinson - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Family Coercion and Valid Consent.Stephen D. Mallary, Bernard Gert & Charles M. Culver - 1986 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (2).

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-03-21

Total views
81 ( #134,479 of 2,455,626 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,205 of 2,455,626 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes