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

Thomas Douglas

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

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

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers

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

Bodily Rights, Misc in Social and Political Philosophy

Cognitive Enhancement in Applied Ethics

Informed Consent in Medicine in Applied Ethics

Punishment in Applied Ethics

Punishment in Criminal Law in Philosophy of Law

(categorize this paper)

ISBN(s)

DOI

10.1007/s12152-016-9275-6

PhilPapers/Archive ID

DOUNNA

Upload history

Archival date: 2018-03-07
View other versions

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-08-24

Total views
131 ( #36,566 of 2,432,437 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #46,174 of 2,432,437 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload

This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.

Applied ethics	Epistemology	History of Western Philosophy	Meta-ethics	Metaphysics	Normative ethics
Philosophy of biology	Philosophy of language	Philosophy of mind	Philosophy of religion	Science Logic and Mathematics	More ...