211 plays
NEUROLAW Around the World (w. Daft Punk)
Starting with Australia, thier legal system “has not been receptive to new neuroscientific technology. Current case law and legislative provisions demonstrate the hurdles imposed by the rigorous admissibility standards”. (via)
In Austria, there isn’t much research to pull from, so they take The Big Neurolaw Questions and apply them to Austrian law. (via) It’s a start.
Brazil is challenged by the divide between science and law, but recent cases and interest show promise in moving forward with the inevitable merge. (via)
Canada talks about the ethics of neuroimaging in research, as they do.
Most places do not have regulations in place for neuroscientific research so “legislation on medical research has been taken as a starting point for the legal analysis”, like in beautiful Finland! (via)
And check France out: “As a reaction to the rapid developments in modern neurosciences, the French legislator proposed the implementation of neuroscientific rules in the French Law on Bioethics in January 2010.” Neuroscientific research remains a hot button and all and the source of much debate, but, “Even if these procedures are not yet a daily occurrence in France, it is an important time to consider the civil, criminal, and constitutional consequences in a second step”. Real action. (via) OOh LA LA!
The Germans see no other way than to champion neuroscientific research. They will not be stopped! And that’s cool with me. (via)
Greece, ever proud of the “innovative spirit” they have showed with revising the legislature when biomedical research calls for it, leads them to consider in this overview, that neuroscience research would follow the same form. (via)
Italy? Lov u. Looking at deception and dipping into free will and neurotechnology, the Italian review discusses their case law on “the concept of “moral damage” and the opportunities that neurotechniques offer in order to have a more objective evaluation”. (via) Niiice.
Guess who is talking about regulations for neuroethics and neurolaw? Japan. And it looks like bioethics stuff is a real sticky area, uh oh. (via)
You know my feelings for the Dutch (swoon). This review talks about how neuroscientific evidence has been used in the courts in the Netherlands, 8 times so far for assessments of responsibility. Now gimme a smooch.
New Zealand’s not having it. They allow that neuroscience can certainly inform them about the human condition, but they won’t have it trying to replace their jury, i.e. neuroimaging for insanity pleas . Keeping that dividing line real clear….but fair enough. (via)
Switzerlandis the world’s skeptic when it comes to neurolaw, it’s too new and the methods can’t yet be trusted. (via) But they reserve a modest amount of optimism. whispery yay.
You know who’s not playing around? Turkey. Looks like they consider this topic to be held under general medical/ethics law. Here they focus on brain death and ”how experimental treatments may be turned out to be a subject of hope trade”. Fascinating! (via)
The UKis looking at something I always blab about: expert witnesses and how neuroscientific evidence may be used in court. Well done. (via) I like that.
And in typical fashion, the US is busting at the seams. Literally. We are excited, a lot is going on, we have a lot to say, jazz hands. But we have no idea where it’s going. (via)
K. I feel like I just hosted the Miss World Neurolaw pageant. Scores are at the bottom of your screen.
