Chemical castration is surely indefensible... and ineffective

Another day, another announcement of the results of the independent reviews that seem to have become the hallmark of the Starmer Labour government. This time, it is about prison reform and how to deal with the overcrowded and broken penal system in the UK.

- ALEXIS PATON

Among the many recommendations made by former justice secretary David Gauke is one that has my ethical hackles up: mandatory chemical castration for sex offenders.

Before anyone gets up in arms, I am not sympathetic to these criminals. They ruin lives and get off easy in our current judicial system. However, chemical castration is not the answer. It is certainly viewed as a viable “solution” for paedophilia by the public, though there is little evidence of its effectiveness in their rehabilitation. It violates key medical ethics tenets on a patient’s right to choose, what is known as patient autonomy, and it will do nothing to stem the rising tide of misogyny in Britain.

Patients, regardless of whether they are in prison or not, have the right to make their own decisions about their health. It doesn’t matter if these are “good” or the “right” clinical decisions; what matters is that it is the right one for that particular person. This is why one person might choose aggressive chemotherapy for terminal cancer over palliative care. Neither decision is wrong. It is about what works within that person’s life, values and beliefs.