The AskPhilosophers logo.

Ethics

Is it better to incarcerate someone who will not voluntarily take a necessary medication (anti-psychotic) or force them to do so? (How do we define "necessary"? Person is disruptive, person may commit a murder, person may commit suicide...) In other words, if they won't take the drug, they have to stay locked up. If they want to be free, someone will administer it to them as a condition of release. Thanks.
Accepted:
October 14, 2005

Comments

Jyl Gentzler
October 29, 2005 (changed October 29, 2005) Permalink

The details of specific cases matter, but a general rule of thumb that many ethicists would endorse is that one may restrict another (adult) person’s freedom only if a significant harm will thereby be prevented. Further, one should use the least restrictive option compatible with preventing this harm.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/198
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org