In David Rhys Birks & Thomas Douglas (eds.), reatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford, UK: (forthcoming)

Authors
Jonathan Pugh
Oxford University
Abstract
According to what Douglas calls ‘the consent requirement’, neuro-correctives can only permissibly be provided with the valid consent of the offender who will undergo the intervention. Some of those who endorse the consent requirement have claimed that even though the requirement prohibits the imposition of mandatory neurocorrectives on criminal offenders, it may yet be permissible to offer offenders the opportunity to consent to undergoing such an intervention, in return for a reduction to their penal sentence. I call this the neurocorrective offer. In this chapter I consider the coercion-based objection to the neurocorrective offer, which claims that offenders cannot provide valid consent to undergoing a neurocorrective on the basis of this offer because it is inherently coercive. Having outlined early formulations of this argument, I point out that there are in fact two different versions of this objection, which appeal to different understandings of the concepts of coercion, consent and voluntariness.
Keywords Neurocorrectives  Coercion  Voluntariness  Punishment  Informed Consent
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics.Jonathan Pugh - 2020 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Family Coercion and Valid Consent.Stephen D. Mallary, Bernard Gert & Charles M. Culver - 1986 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (2).
Consent Under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion.Joseph Millum - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (1):113-127.
Payment for Research Participation: A Coercive Offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.
Consent, Coercion, and Sexual Autonomy.Jeffrey A. Gauthier - 1999 - In Keith Burgess-Jackson (ed.), A Most Detestable Crime: New Philosophical Essays on Rape. Oxford University Press. pp. 71-91.
Consent and Sexual Relations.Alan Wertheimer - 1996 - Legal Theory 2 (2):89-112.
Some Limits of Informed Consent.O. O'Neill - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (1):4-7.
Using Informed Consent to Save Trust.Nir Eyal - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (7):437-444.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-09-21

Total views
134 ( #75,959 of 2,433,271 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #37,483 of 2,433,271 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes