It's interesting to defense lawyers too, if you can say 'my brain made me do it' you can't be culpable.
Of course, the fact that Fred's brain was changed by a tumour is what makes this case interesting and proved how behaviour can be changed by extreme circumstances. But once you accept the fact that brain, beyond our own will, is responsible for behaviour, you can legitimately ask to what extent we are in control of our own actions generally.
Where is your justification for separating the brain from various cognitive processes such as will?
Well rather a lot if you're a believer in the concepts of free will and evil, right and wrong, sin and absolute morality.
Well... I would consider a forced 'treatment' to be a sort of punishment.
Obviously from an outsider's perspective, the individual is hopefully being made better off and so we might say it is all well and good and reserve labeling as punishments things that are generally perceived as negative (prison time, fines, etc.).
I mean, if you are just being yourself one minute, rape someone the next minute, and are then stuck on mandatory drugs and therapy afterwords; I think we could consider your treatment as something of a punishment for your crime.