Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Summary: Neurolaw in an International Comparison

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Neurolaw

Abstract

After the legal landscape in neurosciences has been described for the individual countries, the last chapter is to give an overview on the most common topics connected to neurolaw. As so far none of the countries has established a genuine neurolaw, it seems to be the major challenge for the near future to try and apply existing regulations on neurosciences.

The author works as a research associate in the Research Group “Norm-setting in the Modern Life Sciences” at the Institute of Science and Ethics of the University of Bonn, Germany.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Schleim et al. (2007), p. 8; also referred to by Hilf, Stöger, Country Report Austria.

  2. 2.

    Shafi (2009), p. 27.

  3. 3.

    Morse (2008).

  4. 4.

    See on this below at Sect. 4.

  5. 5.

    See Rödiger 2011, Report on the Council of Europe.

  6. 6.

    See Kopetzki (2010a, b).

  7. 7.

    For an overview see Berka (1999), para. 587.

  8. 8.

    Hadskis (2007), p. 261; Downie and McDonald (2004), p. 174.

  9. 9.

    Spranger (2009a), p.100.

  10. 10.

    Spranger (2009a), pp. 49–51.

  11. 11.

    See in extenso Dagtoglou, pp. 1133–1141.

  12. 12.

    See on this Vidalis et al. 2006, Country Report Greece.

  13. 13.

    See Schweizer and van Spyk 2007, Country Report Switzerland.

  14. 14.

    U.S. v. Semrau (2010).

  15. 15.

    State of Florida v. Grady Nelson (2010).

  16. 16.

    Graham v. Florida (2010).

  17. 17.

    Jones/Shen, Country Report USA.

  18. 18.

    Wegmann (2009a), p. 20.

  19. 19.

    Explanatory Report to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the application of Biology and Medicine, ETS No. 164, Structure of the Convention, No. 7, see http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Reports/Html/164.htm (March 17th, 2011).

  20. 20.

    See Caulfield et al. (2010), Country Report Canada.

  21. 21.

    See Sect. 4.

  22. 22.

    See Lötjönen (2009a), pp. 161–175.

  23. 23.

    See e.g. Schleim et al. (2007).

  24. 24.

    Illes et al. (2006), p. 783.

  25. 25.

    Schleim et al. (2007); Spranger (2009a), pp. 194–197.

  26. 26.

    Jerabek (2010), para. 4.

  27. 27.

    For a short introduction to the experiment, see Sect. 5 above.

  28. 28.

    Free translation of: http://blog.sbnec.org.br/2010/07/direito-e-neurociencias-neurodireito-o-que-e-isso/ (March 21st, 2011).

  29. 29.

    For further references on this discussion, see Tipold (2005), paras. 44–48.

  30. 30.

    Spranger (2009b), pp. 42–43 and Spranger (2009d), p. 1035 comes to a similar conclusion for German criminal law. See also Paeffgen (2010), paras. 230i–230j; Streng (2007), pp. 690–691; Hochhuth (2005), p. 753 comes to the general conclusion (not limited to criminal law) that the legal concept of a free will can be upheld.

  31. 31.

    Hilf/Stöger, Country Report Austria.

  32. 32.

    Spranger, Country Report Germany.

  33. 33.

    Nordmann (Rapporteur), Converging Technologies – Shaping the Future of European Societies, Report 2004, reperibile in: http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/final_report_en.pdf. (March 21st, 2011).

  34. 34.

    Pockett (2010), pp. 281–293.

  35. 35.

    Garland and Frankel (2006), pp. 101–103.

  36. 36.

    Henaghan/Rouch, Country Report New Zealand.

  37. 37.

    Puranik et al. (2009), S. 817.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR 17.12.1996, 19187/91 Saunders v. United Kingdom, para. 69.

  39. 39.

    Klami (1996), p. 215.

  40. 40.

    Spranger (2007), p. 164 et seq.

  41. 41.

    Vidalis/Gkotsi, Country Report Greece.

  42. 42.

    Vidalis/Gkotsi, Country Report Greece.

  43. 43.

    Santosuosso, Country Report Italy.

  44. 44.

    Klaming/Koops, Country Report Netherlands.

  45. 45.

    R v Dixon [2008] 2 NZLR 617 (CA).

  46. 46.

    R v Harris; R v Rock; R v Cherry; R v Faulder [2005] EWCA Crim 1980.

  47. 47.

    Hill v Baxter.

  48. 48.

    www.noliemri.com (March 21st, 2011).

  49. 49.

    R v Malcolm MacMahon [2010] ECWA CRIM 1953.

  50. 50.

    Hansard, HL Vol.692, 5.45 pm (June 12, 2007).

  51. 51.

    Claydon/Catley, Country Report United Kingdom.

  52. 52.

    Houston/Vierboom, Country Report Australia.

  53. 53.

    See Jones/Shen, Country Report USA.

  54. 54.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission on “Assistive Technologies: Ethical Aspects of the Development and Use of Assistive Technologies”, dated 13 July 2009. For details, see footnote 50 above.

  55. 55.

    Hilf/Stöger, Country Report Austria.

  56. 56.

    Silvola, Country Report Finland.

References

  • Berka W (1999) Die Grundrechte. Springer, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T, Rachul C, Zarzeczny A (2010) Neurohype and the name game: who’s to blame? AJOB Neurosci 1(2):13–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie J, McDonald F (2004) Revisioning the oversight of research involving humans in Canada. Health Law J 12:159–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland B, Frankel M (2006) Considering convergence: a policy dialogue about behavioural genetics, neuroscience and law. Law Contemp Probl 69:101–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadskis M (2007) The regulation of human biomedical research in Canada. In: Downie J, Caulfield T, Flood C (eds) Canadian health law and policy, 3rd edn. LexisNexis Canada Inc., Markham, pp 257–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochhuth M (2005) Die Bedeutung der neuen Willensfreiheitdebatte für das Recht. (Deutsche) JuristenZeitung 15-16:745–753

    Google Scholar 

  • Illes J, Kirschen M, Edwards E, Stanford L, Bandettini P, Cho M, Ford P, Glover G, Kulynych J, Macklin R, Michael D, Wolf S (2006) Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science 311:783–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerabek R (2010) § 95 StGB. In: Höpfel F, Ratz E (eds) Kommentar zum StGB (loose-leaf and online), 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Klami HT (1996) Valheenpaljastuskoe Suomen oikeudessa. Defensor Legis 2:209–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopetzki C (2010a) Behandlungen auf dem “Stand der Wissenschaft”. In: Pfeil (ed) Finanzielle Grenzen des Behandlungsanspruchs. Manz, Wien, pp 9–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopetzki C (2010b) Braucht Österreich eine Kodifikation des biomedizinischen Forschungsrechts? In: Körtner U et al (eds) Ethik und Recht in der Humanforschung. Springer, Wien, pp 56–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Lötjönen S (2009a) Autonomy and dignity in clinical medical research on adults with cognitive imparirment. In: Aasen HS, Halvorsen R, Barbosa da Silva A (eds) Human rights, dignity and autonomy in health care and social services: nordic perspectives. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 161–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse S (2008) (quoted in Associated Press), Neuroscience increasingly presented as evidence for trials in US courts. Fox News, 3 March 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Paeffgen U (2010) Vorbemerkungen zu §§ 32ff StGB. In: Kindhäuser U et al (eds) Strafgesetzbuch, vol 1, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Pockett S (2010) The concept of free will: philosophy, neuroscience and the law. Behav Sci Law 25:281–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puranik DA, Joseph SK, Daundkar BB, Garad MV (2009) Brain signature profiling in India: its status as an aid in investigation and as corroborative evidence – as seen from judgments. Proceedings of XX All India Forensic Science Conference, Jaipur, S.815–822. http://www.axxonet.com/cms-filesystem-action/publications/beos_in_india.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2011

  • Rödiger C (2011) Das Ende des BEOS-Tests? Zum jüngsten Lügendetektor-Urteil des Supreme Court of India. Nervenheilkunde 30:74–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleim S, Spranger T, Urbach H, Walter H (2007) Zufallsfunde in der bildgebenden Hirnforschung. Nervenheilkunde 11:1041–1045

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer RJ, van Spyk B (2007) Arzt und Forschung. In: Kuhn M, Poledna T (eds) Arztrecht in der Praxis, 2nd edn. Genf, Zürich, pp 535–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafi N (2009) Neuroscience and the law: the evidentary value of brain imaging. Grad Stud J Psychol 11:27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (2007) Neurowissenschaften und Recht. In: Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik, pp 161 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (2009) Medical law in Germany. International encyclopaedia of laws. Kluwer Law International, Suppl 55

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (2009a) Rechtliche Implikationen der Generierung und Verwendung neurowissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse. In: Schleim et al (eds) Von der Neuroethik zum Neurorecht? Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp 193–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger TM (2009d) Neuroprothetik und bildgebende Hirnforschung. Neue Impulse für die Praxis des Betreuungsrechts. Betreuungsmanagement 4:206–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Streng F (2007) Schuldbegriff und Hirnforschung. In: Pawlik M et al (eds) Festschrift für Günther Jakobs. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipold A (2005) § 4 StGB. In: Höpfel F, Ratz E (eds) Kommentar zum StGB (loose-leaf and online), 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidalis T, Mitrou L, Takis A (2006) Constitutional reception of technological developments and “new” rights. In: TI Ant. Sakkoulas (ed) Centre of European constitutional law, five years after the constitutional revision of 2001, Athens, pp 273–312 (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegmann H (2009a) Informed consent – essential contents and consequences of violation. J Int Biotech Law:20–28

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Science and Ethics, Bonner Talweg 57, 53113, Bonn, Germany

    Henning Wegmann

Authors
  1. Henning Wegmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henning Wegmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institute of Science and Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonner Talweg 57, Bonn, 53113, Germany

    Tade Matthias Spranger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wegmann, H. (2012). Summary: Neurolaw in an International Comparison. In: Spranger, T. (eds) International Neurolaw. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation