Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

Recent biomedical research on the risk-factors and development of antisocial behaviour pointstowards potential clinical applications that target not only the treatment of children with actualbehavioural problems, but also, and in particular, the early detection of children at-risk and theearly prevention of such troubles. The lives of young children, however, are particularly contextbound,that is, they are closely connected with parents and embedded in families. Consequently,screening and prevention measures that intend to affect young children are highly likely toconcern parents and families at the same time. The goal of this presentation is to discuss the roleand position of parents and families in this regard from an ethical point of view. Is theassumption that screening and prevention mainly provide support and help to families indifficulty warranted and if so under which conditions? Instead, could the interests of children,parents and families conflict with those of society and what would it entail to balance the variousperspectives involved proportionately? What about conflicts of interests between children andparents? Questions concerning parental autonomy and ethical reasons for as well as against itsdiminishment for the sake of antisocial behaviour prevention complete the discussion.Young Offenders, Direct Brain Interventions, and Personal IdentityNicole Vincent, Macquarie University (nicole.vincent@mq.edu.au)Hank Greely has recently argued that with advances in knowledge of the neurobiological causesof human behaviour, we may eventually develop direct brain intervention (DBIs) basedtechniques for changing people's behaviour. Candidate DBIs include (though are not limited to)psychopharmaceuticals like SSRIs which seem to diminish propensity towards reactiveaggression and Oxytocin which is linked with pro-sociality. When people's (mis)behaviors arecaused by conditions that are perceived as disorders of the brain – as illnesses or diseases – theuse of DBIs will probably tend to be more readily accepted. But "what about direct braininterventions that treat [the] brain-based causes of socially disfavored behaviors that are notgenerally viewed as [caused by or as manifestations of] diseases" (Greely 2012:163)? Forinstance, if we discovered the neurobiological causes of paedophilia, should it be permissible to"treat" (maybe even involuntarily) "afflicted" individuals? Elsewhere I have argued that DBIspose a special problem for personal identity (Vincent 2012). However, in this paper I will arguethat whatever other reasons there might be to be wary of using DBIs for this purpose, from theperspective of personal identity there would be fewer concerns about using DBIs on youngerthan older individuals.129. Prevention of SuicidePrevention of Suicide in a Forensic Psychiatric ClinicFrank Goldbeck, Klinik Nette-Gut für Forensische Psychiatrie, Weißenthurm, Germany,(F.Goldbeck@kng.landeskrankenhaus.de)306