Nonconsensual neurocorrectives and bodily integrity: a reply to Shaw and Barn
- 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 (2014). In this article I respond to some of their criticisms.
- Publication status:
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
(Version of record, pdf, 336.2KB)
- Publisher copy:
- Copyright holder:
- Douglas, T
- Copyright date:
- © The Author 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- CC Attribution (CC BY)
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record