International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis PDF
Preview International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis
International Neurolaw . Tade Matthias Spranger Editor International Neurolaw A Comparative Analysis Editor AssociateProfessorTadeMatthiasSpranger BMBFResearchGroupELSIattheInstituteofScienceandEthics UniversityofBonn BonnerTalweg57 53113Bonn Germany [email protected] ISBN978-3-642-21540-7 e-ISBN978-3-642-21541-4 DOI10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4 SpringerHeidelbergDordrechtLondonNewYork LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2011939219 #Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting, reproductiononmicrofilmorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9, 1965,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violations areliabletoprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply, evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotective lawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) Preface Whilethepastfewyearshaverepeatedlybeenentitledasthe“eraofbiotechnology”, mostrecentlyonehastogettheimpressionthatatleastthesamedegreeofattentionis beingpaidtothelatestdevelopmentsinthefieldofneurosciences.Asinthefieldsof biotechnology and nanotechnology, neuroscientific research also opens a barely manageablerangeofpossibleapplications,someofwhicharestillrelatedtoapurely experimentalsetting,whileothersarealreadyinpracticaluse.Thepossibleapplica- tions cover aspects as diverse as the development of mind reading machines, lie detectionmethods,orbrain–computerinterfaceapplicationsfortheimprovementof disabledperson’sdailylife. Itisbynownearlyimpossibletooverseethenumberofresearchprojectsdealing with the functionality of the brain – for instance concerning the organizational structureofthebrain–orprojectsdealingwiththetopicneuro-economicsorneuro- marketing. Massive efforts have also been taken in the field of prediction; for instance, some scientists consider it possible to predict a person’s decision before hehasevertoldit.Hence,ahugepracticalinterestisbeingpaidtoneuroscientific developments.Thisespeciallyholdstruefortheusageofneuroscientificmethodsin court trials. In the USA, companiessuch as Cephos andNO Lie MRI canvass the usage ofimage-guidedprocedures –especiallythe functionalmagnetic resonance tomography–indifferentlegalareas.Alsoothercountriesshowastrongdevelop- mentofcomparablemethods:InIndia,twostateswithtogetherabout160million citizens use the so-called BEOS-Test (Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature), which is initially based on the electroencephalography (EEG). The activity measured by the EEG is evaluated by specific software; an interpretation of the data by the investigator is not planned. In 2008, the decision of an Indian court gained worldwide attention, basing its conviction essentially on the result of aBEOS-Testandconvictingtheconcernedwomantoalife-longsentence. The above-mentioned procedures are connected to a wide variety of legal questions. These questions concern the frame conditions of scientific projects as well as the right approach toward the usage of generated findings. With regard to thisutmostimportanceofthetopicforlatestdevelopments,itisofspecialinterest v vi Preface to compare the different legal systems and strategies which they hold at hand for dealing with those legal implications. Therefore, this volume contains several “countryreports”fromaroundtheworld,aswellasreportsofselectedinternational organizations, in order to show the different legal approaches towards the topic. Each chapter aims to survey the relevant legal order’s landscape both for the generation of neuroscientific knowledge (i.e. probands’ rights, the relationship between research participant and researcher, the problem of incidental findings etc)andfortheusageofneuroscientificknowledge. This book aims to give a first and lasting impetus for further and – given the dimension of the issue – much-needed internationalization of the discussion. My specialthanksgotomycolleaguesinvolvedfortheircommitment,tothemembers ofmyresearchgroupattheUniversityofBonnfortheirsubstantialinput,andlast but not least, to Dr. Brigitte Reschke at Springer Publishing for supporting this project. Bonn TadeMatthiasSpranger Contents NeurosciencesandtheLaw:AnIntroduction ............................... 1 TadeMatthiasSpranger NeuroscienceandLaw:Australia ............................................ 11 LeanneHoustonandAmyVierboom CountryReport:Austria ..................................................... 43 MarianneJohannaHilfandKarlSto¨ger BrainzilImaging:ChallengesfortheLargest LatinAmericanCountry ..................................................... 67 HenriqueMoraesPrataandMa´rciaArau´joSabinodeFreitas ResearchEthicsChallengesinNeuroimagingResearch: ACanadianPerspective ...................................................... 89 CiaraToole,AmyZarzeczny,andTimothyCaulfield TheCouncilofEurope’sNext“AdditionalProtocol onNeuroscientificResearch”? .............................................. 103 CarolineRo¨diger LegalLandscapeofNeuroscientificResearchandIts ApplicationsinFinland ...................................................... 117 SallaSilvola TheObtainmentandUseofNeuroscientificKnowledge inFrance ...................................................................... 137 CarolineRo¨diger vii viii Contents LegalImplicationsofNeuroscientificInstruments withSpecialRegardtotheGermanConstitutionalOrder ............... 153 TadeMatthiasSpranger NeurolawinGreece:AnOverview ......................................... 179 TakisVidalisandGeorgia-MarthaGkotsi NeuroscienceandConvergingTechnologiesinItaly:FromFreeWill ApproachtoHumansasNotDisconnectedEntities ........................ 197 AmedeoSantosuosso NeurolawinJapan ........................................................... 215 KatsunoriKai NeuroscientificEvidenceandCriminalResponsibility intheNetherlands ............................................................ 227 LauraKlamingandBert-JaapKoops NeuroscienceandtheLawinNewZealand ................................ 257 MarkHenaghanandKateRouch Switzerland:BrainResearchandtheLaw ................................. 269 RainerJ.SchweizerandSeverinBischof NeuroethicsandNeurolawinTurkey ...................................... 289 BernaArdaandAhmetAcıduman NeuroscientificEvidenceintheEnglishCourts ............................ 305 LisaClaydonandPaulCatley NeurolawandUNESCOBioethicsDeclarations ........................... 329 DarrylMacer LawandNeuroscienceintheUnitedStates ................................ 349 OwenD.JonesandFrancisX.Shen Summary:NeurolawinanInternationalComparison .................... 381 HenningWegmann Contributors A. Aciduman Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ankara University,FacultyofMedicine,Ankara,Turkey B. Arda Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ankara University,FacultyofMedicine,Ankara,Turkey S. Bischof Forschungsgemeinschaft fu¨r Rechtswissenschaft der Universita¨t St.Gallen,St.Gallen,Switzerland P.Catley UniversityoftheWestofEngland,Bristol,UK T. Caulfield Faculty of Law, Law Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada L.Claydon UniversityoftheWestofEngland,Bristol,UK M.A.S.deFreitas UniversityofSa˜oPauloLawSchool,Sa˜oPaulo,Brazil G.-M. Gkotsi ETHOS, Interdisciplinary Ethics Platform, Quartier UNIL-Sorge, BatimentAmhipole,Lausanne,Switzerland M.Henaghan FacultyofLaw,UniversityofOtago,Dunedin,NewZealand M.J. Hilf Institut fu¨r Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Kriminologie, Universita¨t St.Gallen,St.Gallen,Switzerland L.Houston UniversityofTechnologySydney,Sydney,Australia ix x Contributors O.D.Jones MacArthurFoundationResearchNetworkonLawandNeuroscience, VanderbiltUniversity,Nashville,TN,USA K.Kai Centerfor Professional LegalEducationandResearch(CPLER),Waseda LawSchool,Tokyo,Japan L. Klaming Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University,Tilburg,TheNetherlands B.-J. Koops Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University,Tilburg,TheNetherlands S. Lo¨tjo¨nen Docent in Medical and Bio Law, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland D.Macer RUSHSAP,UNESCO,Bangkok,Thailand H.M.Prata AlamedaJoaquimEugeˆniodeLima,Sa˜oPaulo,Brazil C.Ro¨diger InstituteofScienceandEthics,UniversityofBonn,Bonn,Germany K.Rouch FacultyofLaw,UniversityofOtago,Dunedin,NewZealand A. Santosuosso European Center for Law, Science and New Technologies, UniversityofPavia,CorsoStradaNuova,Italy R.J. Schweizer Forschungsgemeinschaft fu¨r Rechtswissenschaft der Universita¨t St.Gallen,St.Gallen,Switzerland F.X.Shen TulaneUniversityLawSchoolandTheMurphyInstitute,NewOrleans, LA,USA S.Silvola UniversityofHelsinki,Helsinki,Finland Tade MatthiasSpranger BMBFResearch GroupELSI,InstituteofScience and Ethics,UniversityofBonn,Bonn,Germany K. Sto¨ger Institut fu¨r O¨sterreichisches, Europa¨isches und Vergleichendes O¨ffen- tliches Recht, Politikwissenschaft und Verwaltungslehre, Universita¨t Graz, Graz, Austria C.Toole FacultyofLaw,LawCentre,UniversityofAlberta,Edmonton,Canada T.Vidalis NationalBioethicsComission,Athens,Greece
The list of books you might like
