Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium,
Theor Med Bioeth. 2014 Feb;35(1):59-72. doi: 10.1007/s11017-014-9276-6.
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.
如果神经反馈或其他类型的神经技术治疗，单独或与行为治疗结合使用，可以成功地“重塑”精神病患者的大脑，那该怎么办？想象一下，如果存在这样的治疗方法，并且与监禁相比，它们提供了一种更好的长期降低风险的策略。将这些治疗方法作为缓刑、假释或（提前）出狱的条件提供是否符合道德规范？在本文中，我认为，只要符合以下条件，将有效的、非侵入性的神经技术治疗作为缓刑、假释或（提前）出狱的条件提供给罪犯是符合道德规范的：（1）现状在任何方面都不是残忍、不人道、有辱人格的，或以其他方式错误的，（2）治疗方案在任何方面都不是残忍、不人道、有辱人格的，或以其他方式错误的，（3）治疗符合罪犯的最佳利益，（4）罪犯给予其知情同意。
