Chemical Castration: Humane or Just as Bad?

As a form of punishment, what if sexual offenders were stopped from committing a crime ever again, at the cost of medical and psychological side effects? Chemical castration involves the ongoing administration of anti-androgen drugs that reduce sex drive, the ability to be aroused, and ultimately lowers testosterone levels. While not a permanent treatment, some of the side effects of this treatment can include severe mood instability, lower bone density and body mass (which can result in a greater risk of bone fractures), and the increased risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Some countries have begun administering chemical castration for incarcerated sex offenders as a condition of parole or early release, which has sparked much debate on the ethicality of the treatment as a punishment. 

On one hand, there is a huge concern over allowing judges to make medical decisions for offenders on the basis of administering justice. While judges may be trained and considered experts in the legal field, a judge may lack the expertise to prescribe a medical decision that may have a lifetime of consequences. Additionally, even when chemical castration is offered as an option, consent is not willingly given. An incarcerated individual's decision on the treatment may be used against him in later discussions of parole, as a 'no' could be interpreted as the offender acknowledging a refusal to rehabilitate (even if the decision was based on bodily autonomy). 

However, in the scenario of a person who genuinely cannot control hyper sexuality or dark urges, the option of chemical castration may give them more autonomy as a human to live a prosocial life. The use of chemical castration may be a pathway for sexual offenders to rehabilitate themselves, and proactively manage their condition. In this case, chemical castration becomes a tool for personal agency and autonomy, allowing incarcerated sex offenders the chance to start anew. At the end of the day, the use of chemical castration must be heavily regulated. While some may see the practice as unethical, for others it provides a pathway to end their criminal life. 

More about this topic can be found in this video, where Dr. Thomas Douglas reviews more on the consent aspect of chemical castration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=k5LsqOYf488&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fcanvas.sfu.ca%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjQsMjg2NjY