Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders: Ethical and Legal Considerations

Exploring a National Rollout

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is considering a nationwide program of chemical castration for sex offenders. This process involves lowering testosterone levels to reduce libido.

This idea comes from a recent independent sentencing review. The review aimed to tackle prison overcrowding and explore alternatives to imprisonment. It found that 21% of adults in prison were convicted of sexual offenses. The goal is to make offenders’ release less dangerous for the public.

A pilot scheme of voluntary chemical castration is already underway in 20 British prisons. While the review stresses the importance of consent, Mahmood is looking into making it mandatory. This raises significant ethical and legal questions.

Is It Ethical?

Chemical castration serves two main purposes. It can help those who receive it by reducing their sexual desires. It can also protect the public.

We need to ask: What is our main goal with chemical castration? Is it to reduce reoffending or to improve the offender’s life? Or both? The ethical permissibility of chemical castration depends on its purpose.

Medical interventions are usually ethical when they benefit the recipient who consents. But if the goal is public protection, the ethics become more complex. We don’t usually get to consent to imprisonment or quarantine. So, can we bypass consent for chemical castration?

While some offenders may want to suppress their sexual desires, chemical castration has side effects. These include weight gain and mood changes. If it reduces problematic desires, offenders may benefit. But we need to understand what “benefit” means in this context.

Is it beneficial to reduce sexual desires? Does avoiding future punishment count as a benefit? Can it be beneficial without consent? We need a clear understanding of benefit and its interaction with consent to determine when chemical castration is ethical.

Is It Legal?

The purpose of chemical castration also matters for its legal justification. Medical interventions are usually lawful because they benefit the recipient. The lack of clarity on who benefits and how is a problem.

Analysis shows that chemical castration may be consistent with human rights obligations. This could be the case even without consent, especially if the goal is public protection. But we still need to clarify how benefit or harm interacts with consent.

A Dilemma for Doctors

A nationwide rollout of chemical castration raises ethical and legal dilemmas for those administering it. Forensic psychiatrist Professor Don Grubin says it’s about doctors treating patients. However, it’s not clear that chemical castration should always be seen as a therapeutic intervention.

The idea that doctors are always acting to benefit the recipient obscures the ethical and legal issues. A better approach is to clarify the different values and duties at stake. We need to find ways to navigate conflicting duties.

Can it be compatible with professional obligations to provide interventions that aren’t in the recipient’s clinical interests if it benefits others? Do professional obligations vary according to the intervention’s purpose? Chemical castration exposes tensions in the ethical and legal obligations that providers owe to recipients and to society.

These questions are crucial for the government and those involved in chemically castrating sex offenders. We need to understand, evaluate, and regulate dual-purpose interventions carefully.

Lisa Forsberg is Senior Research Fellow, Uehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford.

This article was first published on The Conversation.