International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis

413 Pages·2012·2.266 MB·English

by  Tade Matthias Spranger (auth.), Tade Matthias Spranger (eds.)

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