In this project we deal with the question of whether using chemical castration as a means of treating sex offenders can be defended as morally permissible. Our focus is on perceiving the treatment as a means of improving the situation of the sex offender (whilst naturally considering public safety concerns), and is divided between a coercive and a voluntary approach to the treatment. In light of this focus our chosen literature is mainly made up of discussions regarding paternalism. To test the moral permissibility of the treatment we construct four cases, each describing a sex offender with a distinct background story, and weigh arguments for and against treatment in each case. This approach was chosen in order to make sure that our examination didn’t overlook the diversity of various real instances of sex crimes. We conclude that chemical castration can be regarded as morally permissible when used in a voluntary treatment model. Considering chemical castration in a coercive treatment model we conclude that the treatment could in theory be regarded as morally legitimate in some cases but in practice shows to be problematic due to the empirical evidence suggesting its deficiency as a means of preventing relapse.
|Uddannelser||Filosofi og Videnskabsteori, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) Bachelor el. kandidat|
|Udgivelsesdato||6 jan. 2011|
|Vejledere||Thomas Søbirk Petersen|