Abstract
In 2024, Louisiana became the first state to permit courtordered surgical castration for sex offenders who have been convicted of certain sex crimes against children. Under the law, an offender who refuses to submit to the procedure will face an additional three to five years in prison without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The court’s order is contingent on confirmation by a court-appointed expert that the offender is an “appropriate candidate for surgery.” However, the statutory language is vague and does not clearly define who can serve as an expert nor does it define the scope of the expert’s determinations. These gaps in the law, as well as the informed consent issues associated with court-initiated treatments, could raise ethical concerns for physicians tasked with performing the procedure. Above all, physicians have a duty to uphold the ethics and integrity of the medical profession, which supersedes any civic duties imposed by a court. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), physicians may only participate in court-ordered medical treatment in limited circumstances when they can conform to the requirements of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics. This Comment seeks to identify conflicts between Louisiana’s court-ordered surgical castration law and the Code of Medical Ethics and develop ways that the law may be amended to allow for ethical physician participation.
Recommended Citation
Morgan Ambrosecchia,
Thou Shalt Not Castrate: The Conflict Between Louisiana’s Surgical Castration Law and The Principles of Medical Ethics,
130
Dick. L. Rev.
287
(2025).
Available at:
https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol130/iss1/8