Nonconsensual Neurocorrectives and Bodily Integrity: a Reply to Shaw and Barn

Neuroethics 12 (1):107-118 (2019)

Authors
Thomas Douglas
Oxford University
Abstract
In this issue, Elizabeth Shaw and Gulzaar Barn offer a number of replies to my arguments in ‘Criminal Rehabilitation Through Medical Intervention: Moral Liability and the Right to Bodily Integrity’, Journal of Ethics. In this article I respond to some of their criticisms.
Keywords Neurocorrectives  Neurointerventions  Criminal justice  Criminal rehabilitation  Neuroscience  Chemical castration
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-016-9275-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Bodily Integrity and the Sale of Human Organs.S. Wilkinson & E. Garrard - 1996 - Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (6):334-339.
Epistemic vagueness?Fred Ablondi - 2009 - Think 8 (22):47-50.
The Right to Bodily Integrity.A. M. Viens (ed.) - forthcoming - Ashgate.
Bodily Integrity and Male and Female Circumcision.Wim Dekkers, Cor Hoffer & Jean-Pierre Wils - 2004 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (2):179-191.
Body Integrity Identity Disorder and the Ethics of Mutilation.Robert Song - 2013 - Studies in Christian Ethics 26 (4):487-503.
'Women in Music': A Reply to Gordon Graham.D. Shaw - 2001 - British Journal of Aesthetics 41 (1):84-87.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-08-24

Total views
70 ( #107,629 of 2,236,459 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
24 ( #26,612 of 2,236,459 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature