Cover......Page 1
International Neurolaw......Page 4
ISBN 9783642215407......Page 5
Preface......Page 6
Contents......Page 8
Contributors......Page 10
Neurosciences and the Law: An Introduction......Page 14
References......Page 21
1 Introduction......Page 24
2 The Admissibility of Neuroscientific Methods in Australian Courts......Page 25
3 The Impact of fMRI Lie-Detection on the Legal System......Page 31
5 The Impact of fMRI Lie-Detection for the Jury......Page 32
6 The Right to Silence and the Right to Privacy......Page 36
7 Admissibility Under General Exclusionary Clauses and the Regulation of fMRI Lie-Detection......Page 38
8.1 Can fMRI Provide New Insights into Criminal Responsibility?......Page 40
9 The Legal Admissibility of fMRI Evidence......Page 41
10 The Conceptual Limitations of fMRI Data......Page 42
11 The Overarching Concept of Responsibility......Page 43
12 Voluntariness......Page 44
13 The Element of Mens Rea......Page 46
14 Criminal Defences......Page 47
15 Non Determinism, Sentencing and the Importance of Moral Education......Page 50
16 Conclusion......Page 52
References......Page 53
Country Report: Austria......Page 56
1 Introduction......Page 57
2.1 General Remarks......Page 58
2.2 Assessment By an Ethics Committee?......Page 60
2.3 Incidental Findings......Page 62
2.4 Obligation to Disclose Neuroscientific Test Results?......Page 66
3 Assistive Technologies and Neuro-Enhancement......Page 67
4 Determinism and Criminal Law......Page 71
5 Mind-Reading Technology´´ in Criminal and Civil Procedures......Page 72<br>References......Page 76<br>Brainzil Imaging: Challenges for the Largest Latin American Country......Page 80<br>2.1 Political Structure and Regional Inequalities......Page 81<br>2.2 The Legislature......Page 83<br>2.3 The Judiciary......Page 84<br>3.1 Overview of Science in Brazil......Page 86<br>3.2 The Edmond and Lily Safra International Institute of Neuroscience of Natal......Page 88<br>3.4 Brazilian Neuroscientists and the Importance of Their Researches to Law......Page 89<br>4.1 Decisions of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul......Page 91<br>4.3 Decisions of the Court of Justice of São Paulo......Page 92<br>5 Doing Research in Brazil......Page 95<br>5.1 Resolution n. 196 of the National Health Council......Page 96<br>5.2 Informed Consent According to Resolution n. 196 of the National Health Council......Page 97<br>6 Conclusion......Page 99<br>References......Page 100<br>1 Introduction......Page 102<br>2 Neuroimaging Technologies: A Brief Overview......Page 103<br>3 Emerging Ethical Issues......Page 104<br>4 Research Ethics Governance in Canada......Page 105<br>5.1 Recruitment and Selection of Participants......Page 107<br>5.2 Informed Consent......Page 108<br>5.4 Other Emerging Areas of Concern......Page 109<br>6 Conclusion......Page 110<br>References......Page 111<br>1 Introduction......Page 116<br>2.1 Case Study 1......Page 118<br>3 Regulatory Framework Applicable for Neuroscientific Research......Page 119<br>3.1 The Council of Europe......Page 120<br>3.2 A NewAdditional Protocol on Neuroscientific Research´´?......Page 121
Nature of the Research Study......Page 122
Burdens of the Research Study......Page 123
Data Protection......Page 124
Compensation for Undue Damage......Page 125
3.2.2 Informed Consent of Vulnerable Groups......Page 126
4 Outlook......Page 127
References......Page 128
1.1 Relationship Between Medical and Neuroscientific Research......Page 130
1.3 Legal Limits of Neuroscientific Research......Page 132
Ethics Committee Review......Page 133
Person in Charge of the Research Project......Page 134
Other Organisational Aspects......Page 135
Formal Requirements......Page 137
Incidental Findings......Page 138
Withdrawal of Consent......Page 140
2.1 Therapeutic Medicine......Page 141
2.2 Medicinal Products for Enhancement......Page 142
2.3 Legal Proceedings......Page 144
2.5 Employment......Page 145
References......Page 146
The Obtainment and Use of Neuroscientific Knowledge in France......Page 150
1 Introduction......Page 151
2 Legal Framework for Neuroscientific Research......Page 152
2.1 Application of the Law on Bioethics?......Page 153
2.1.1 Informed Consent......Page 154
2.1.3 Right to Know and Not to Know......Page 156
2.1.4 Data Protection......Page 158
2.1.5 Right to Compensation......Page 160
3 Application of Neuroscientific Techniques......Page 161
3.1 Use of fMRI Scanners as Lie Detection Tests in Courtrooms......Page 162
3.2 Use of fMRI Scanners as Communication Methods for Vegetative State Patients?......Page 163
4 Outlook......Page 164
References......Page 165
1 Introduction......Page 166
2 Constitutional Landscape......Page 167
2.1.1 General Understanding of Human Dignity......Page 168
Intensity of the Threatening Intervention......Page 170
Procedural Use......Page 172
Mind Reading´´......Page 174<br>2.1.3 Enabling of Humane Existence......Page 175<br>Relevance for the Initiation of Legal Custodianship......Page 176<br>2.2.2 Duty to Protect......Page 177<br>2.3 General Right of the Personality......Page 179<br>2.5 Ability to Vote......Page 180<br>3.1 Legal Conflicts......Page 181<br>3.2 Practical Consequences......Page 182<br>4.1.1 Criminal Responsibility......Page 183<br>4.1.3 The Future of a Neuroscientific Lie-Detector......Page 184<br>4.2.2 Improvement of the Legal Situation......Page 186<br>4.2.3 Jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court......Page 187<br>4.4 Further Fields of Application......Page 188<br>References......Page 189<br>Neurolaw in Greece: An Overview......Page 192<br>1 Introduction......Page 193<br>1.1.1 The Constitutional Aspect......Page 194<br>1.1.2 Civil Code: Legal Capacity in Regular Life......Page 195<br>1.1.3 Medical Law and Research......Page 196<br>Transplantations......Page 197<br>The Status of Mentally Ill Patients......Page 198<br>Research in Neurosciences......Page 199<br>1.2.1 Neuroscience and the Assessment of Criminal Responsibility Under the Greek Legal System......Page 200<br>1.2.2 Punishment: Security Measures......Page 202<br>1.2.4 Crime Prevention......Page 204<br>Legal Framework......Page 205<br>The Issue of Consent......Page 206<br>Decision 93/2002 Mixed Jury Court of Athens......Page 207<br>2 Conclusion......Page 208<br>References......Page 209<br>1 Neuroscience and Neurotechniques Within Converging Technologies......Page 210<br>2 Chronic Pain, Objective Measurement and the Law......Page 212<br>2.1 Chronic Pain......Page 213<br>2.2 Case Law......Page 214<br>2.3 Limits and Opportunity of Neurotechniques......Page 216<br>3 Artificial Intelligence and Robots......Page 217<br>3.1 About Robots......Page 218<br>3.2 Robots That Move and Animals (Roomba and Scooba)......Page 219<br>3.3 Robots That Learn and Grow Up (Icub and Nao)......Page 221<br>3.4 Humans and Machines......Page 223<br>4 Still Self-Determination?......Page 224<br>References......Page 226<br>1.1 Short History of Arguments on Neuroethics in Japan......Page 228<br>1.2 Outline of Current Situations of Arguments on Neuroethics in Japan......Page 230<br>2.1 Informed Consent and Protection of Patients or Human Subjects......Page 231<br>2.2 Criminal Responsibility and Problem of Free Will......Page 232<br>2.3 Protection of Personal Data......Page 233<br>3.2 Objects of Legal Regulation......Page 234<br>3.3 Grounds of Regulation......Page 235<br>3.4 Model of Regulation: Proposal of Legal Doctrine of Medical Due Process......Page 236<br>References......Page 237<br>1 Introduction......Page 240<br>2 Neuroscience and Criminal Responsibility......Page 244<br>2.1 Frontal Lobe Dysfunction and Criminal Behaviour......Page 245<br>2.2 Limbic System Dysfunction and Criminal Behaviour......Page 246<br>2.3 Neurotechnologies and Criminal Behaviour......Page 247<br>3.1 Criminal Responsibility in Dutch Law......Page 249<br>3.2 Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom......Page 250<br>District Court Amsterdam 21 June 2010/Court of Appeals Amsterdam 27 August 2010......Page 251<br>3.2.2 Use of Neuroscience to Determine Intentionality and Premeditation......Page 253<br>District Court Amsterdam 28 March 2008......Page 254<br>District Court´s-Hertogenbosch 5 September 2007......Page 255<br>3.2.3 Use of Neuroscience to Determine Culpability......Page 256<br>District Court Utrecht 14 February 2006......Page 257<br>District Court Alkmaar 24 June 2008......Page 258<br>District Court´s-Gravenhage 22 April 2010......Page 259<br>District Court Haarlem 24 November 2009......Page 260<br>4 Discussion......Page 261<br>5 Conclusion and Outlook......Page 264<br>References......Page 265<br>1 Introduction......Page 270<br>2.1 Types of Neuroimaging......Page 272<br>3.2 Uses in Health Law......Page 273<br>4.1 Negating Mens Rea......Page 274<br>4.3 In Sentencing......Page 275<br>5.2 Efficacy of Evidence......Page 276<br>6.1 Abolition of Juries......Page 277<br>7.2 Uses inCounterterrorism´´......Page 278
References......Page 279
1.1 Recent Neuroscientific Insights......Page 282
1.2 Evaluation......Page 283
1.3.1 With Regard To The Present State Of Research......Page 284
1.3.2 With Regard To A Possible Future State Of Research......Page 285
2.1 Fundamental Liberal Conception Of Humanity In The Constitution......Page 286
Aspiration Of The Neurosciences......Page 288
In The Field Of Research......Page 289
In The Field Of Additional Medical Applications......Page 291
2.2.2 In The Field Of Police- And Security Law......Page 294
2.2.4 In The Field Of Data Protection......Page 295
3 The Existing Legal Framework On Research......Page 297
References......Page 299
Neuroethics and Neurolaw in Turkey......Page 302
1 A Few Related Examples from the Medical History......Page 303
2 Neuroethics and Neurolaw in Daily Medical Applications......Page 304
2.1 Euthanasia from Neuroethics and Neurolaw Point of View......Page 305
2.2 The ``DNR Order´´ in Daily Life of Medicine......Page 307
2.3 Brain Death Decisions and Organ Transplantations......Page 308
3 Neuroethics and Neurolaw in the Research World......Page 310
4 Conclusion......Page 314
References......Page 315
1 Introduction......Page 318
1.1 Rules of Evidence Including Expert Evidence......Page 319
1.2 The Recording of Decisions......Page 320
2 Criminal Law and Neuroscientific Evidence......Page 321
2.1 General Issues Relating to Criminal Capacity......Page 322
2.2 Early Judicial Approaches to the Use of Neuroscientific Evidence......Page 323
2.3 Fitness to Plead......Page 324
2.4 Diminished Responsibility......Page 326
2.5 Claims That Actions Are Not Voluntary......Page 329
3.1 Testamentary Capacity......Page 330
3.2 Other Issues of Capacity......Page 334
3.3 Personal Injury......Page 335
3.4 Withdrawal of Treatment from Those in Persistent Vegetative States......Page 337
4 The Possible Future Uses of Neuroscientific Technologies Inside and Outside the Courtroom......Page 338
1 Introduction......Page 342
2 Analysis of the 1997 Declaration......Page 343
3 Analysis of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005)......Page 350
4 A Few Reflections on Universal Declaration on Human Rights......Page 356
5 Reflections on Ethical Challenges of Neurosciences......Page 358
References......Page 360
Law and Neuroscience in the United States......Page 362
1 Law and Neuroscience in the United States......Page 363
2.1 The Development of Neuroscience in Law......Page 366
2.2 The Limitations of Neuroscience in Law......Page 368
3 Evidentiary Context......Page 370
4.1 Neuroscience and Culpability......Page 373
4.2 Neuroscience and Sentencing......Page 375
4.3 The Adolescent Brain......Page 376
4.4 Addiction, Trauma, and Responsibility......Page 377
4.5 Psychopathy......Page 378
5.2 Pain and Emotional Harm......Page 379
6.1 Lie Detection......Page 380
6.2 Memory......Page 381
6.3 Legal Decision-Making......Page 382
7 Conclusion......Page 383
References......Page 385
1 Introduction: Topicality of Neurolaw in the International Discussion......Page 394
2 Legal Framework......Page 395
3 Informed Consent......Page 403
4 Incidental Findings......Page 406
5 The Concept of Free Will......Page 409
6 Criminal Law and Mind Reading......Page 412
7 Neuro-Enhancement......Page 421
8 Conclusion......Page 422
References......Page 423