Justifications for Non-Consensual Medical Intervention: From Infectious Disease Control to Criminal Rehabilitation

Area of Science:

• Medical Ethics
• Public Health Policy
• Criminal Justice

Background:

• Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics for interventions on competent individuals.
• However, non-consensual medical interventions are sometimes considered morally permissible for infectious disease control (IDC).

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore moral frameworks justifying non-consensual IDC interventions.
• To establish criteria for assessing the moral permissibility of such interventions.
• To evaluate the justification of non-consensual interventions for criminal offender rehabilitation.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of two distinct moral frameworks for non-consensual IDC interventions.
• Identification and application of five key desiderata for moral assessment.
• Examination of implications for non-consensual medical interventions in criminal rehabilitation.

Main Results:

• Two moral frameworks provide potential justifications for non-consensual IDC interventions.
• Five desiderata offer a structured approach to evaluating these justifications.
• The criteria suggest a plausible case for non-consensual interventions aimed at offender rehabilitation.

Conclusions:

• The ethical permissibility of non-consensual medical interventions requires careful moral evaluation.
• Existing ethical frameworks and proposed desiderata can guide decisions in public health and criminal justice contexts.
• Non-consensual interventions for rehabilitation may be justifiable under specific ethical considerations.