Chemical Restraints and the Basic Liberties

Abstract

<p>In this paper I argue that Crutchfield and Redinger have not yet given sufficient grounds to deny that there is a basic liberty against having one’s conscious state intentionally changed. In fact, I show that it is plausible to hold that in at least some cases, changing a particular conscious state is a greater intrusion to a basic liberty than one that simply intrudes upon being conscious. This means that further argument is needed to establish the order in which various restraints should be administered.</p>