title: Mandatory neurotechnological treatment: ethical issues.
abstract: What if neurofeedback or other types of neurotechnological treatment, by itself or in combination with behavioral treatment, could achieve a successful "rewiring" of the psychopath's brain? Imagine that such treatments exist and that they provide a better long-term risk-minimizing strategy compared to imprisonment. Would it be ethical to offer such treatments as a condition of probation, parole, or (early) prison release? In this paper, I argue that it can be ethical to offer effective, non-invasive neurotechnological treatments to offenders as a condition of probation, parole, or (early) prison release provided that: (1) the status quo is in no way cruel, inhuman, degrading, or in some other way wrong, (2) the treatment option is in no way cruel, inhuman, degrading, or in some other way wrong, (3) the treatment is in the best interests of the offender, and (4) the offender gives his/her informed consent.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium, farah.focquaert@UGent.be.
authors.forename: Farah
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Focquaert
mesh_terms: D000987:Antisocial Personality Disorder / Q000523:psychology / Q000628:therapy*; D003068:Coercion; D057237:Criminals; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D009014:Morals; D058765:Neurofeedback; D010349:Patient Compliance; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D011329:Prisoners; D012919:Social Behavior