Neuroética: bases para la introducción de la neuroimagen en el proceso judicial penal

María Sánchez Vilanova

Resumen


En el presente trabajo se efectúa una aproximación general a los reparos éticos que la investigación neurocientífica plantea, especialmente respecto de sus usos extralimitados en el proceso penal. Así pues, con el objetivo de regular un uso adecuado, respetuoso con los principios generalmente aceptados en el ámbito biomédico, se desarrolla una propuesta de regulación ética de esta materia que preceda a su uso probatorio en el ámbito forense.


Palabras clave


derechos fundamentales; neuroimagen; prueba; bioética; neuroética; consentimiento informado

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Aharoni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. y Gazzaniga, M (2008) Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience, Ann. NY Acad. Sci., New York, 1124, 145–160.

Annas, G.H (2007) Imagining a New Era of Neuroimaging, Neuroethics, and Neurolaw, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Sage Publications, New York, 33, 163.

Beauchamp, T. y Childress, J.H (1979) Morality and Ethical Theory. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York.

Bird, S.J. y Illes, J (2006) Neuroethics: A Modern Context for Ethics in Neuroscience, Trends in Neuroscience, Elsevier, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 29, 511, 514.

Buchman, D.Z. y Illes, J (2010) Neuroscience: imaging genetics for our neurogenetic future, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, 11, 79–97.

Casado, M (1998) “Los Derechos Humanos como marco para el Bioderecho y la Bioética”, En Romeo Casabona, C.M. (Coord.), Derecho Biomédico y Bioética, Comares, Barcelona.

Farah, M.J (2005) Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical, Trends Cognitive Sci., University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, 9:34–40.

Farrell, Brian (2009) Can’t Get You Out of My Head: The Human Rights Implications of Using Brain Scans as Criminal Evidence, Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Rights Law, Council for American Students in International Negotiations, Bay Shore, New York, 4, 89.

Fausto-Sterling, A (2010) Sexing the body, Basic Books, New York, 118.

Fine, C (2010) From Scanner to Sound Bite: Issues in Interpreting and Reporting Sex Differences in the Brain, Current Directions in Psychological Science, SAGE Publications, New York, 19(5):280-283.

Finn, J.E (2006) Privacy—the early cases. Civil liberties and the Bill of Rights lecture series, The Teaching Company, Chantilly, Virginia, 2006.

Ford, E. y Aggarwal, N (2012) “Neuroethics of Functional Neuroimaging in the Courtroom”, Simpson, J.R. (ED.) Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry: From the clinic to the courtroom, Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell, 325-340.

Glenn, L.M (2005) Keeping an open mind: what legal safeguards are needed?, The American Journal of Bioethics, Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom, 5 (2), 61 y ss.

Goodenough, O.R. y Tucker, M (2010) Law and Cognitive Neuroscience, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, California, 6:61–92.

Greely H.T (2009) Law and the Revolution in Neuroscience: An Early Look at the Field, Akron Law Review, University of Akron School of Law, Akron, Ohio, 42, 687-715.

Greely, H.T (2006) Neuroethics and ELSI: similarities and differences, Minn J Law Sci Tech, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, 7:599–614.

Greely, H.T (2008) Neuroscience and Criminal Justice: Not Responsibility But Treatment, University of Kansas Law Review, University of Kansas, Kansas, 56, 1103.

Greely, H.T (2004) “Prediction, Litigation, Privacy and Property: Some possible legal and social implications for advances in neuroscience”, en Garland, B: Neuroscience and the. Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, Dana Press, New York, 114–156.

Greely, H.T y Illes, J. (2007) Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Sage Publications, New York, 33, 377–431.

Hughes, V. (2010) Science In Court, Nature, London, 464, 340.

Illes, J. (Ed.) (2006) Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1 y ss.

Illes, J. (2009) Neurologisms, Am. J. Bioeth., Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom, 9(9), 1.11; Revista “Neuroethics”, disponible en: http://link.springer.com/journal/12152.

Illes, J. et al (2008). Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research. Neurology, American Academy of Neurology, Minneapolis, 70(5), 386.

Illes, J. y Racine, E. (2005) Imaging or Imagining? A Neuroethics Challenge Informed by Genetics, Am. J. Bioeth., Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom, 5–18.

Illes, J. y Sahakian, B.J. (Eds) (2011) Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, Oxford University Press, New York, 1 y ss.

Khoshbin L.S. y Khoshbin, S. (2007) Imaging the Mind, Minding the Image: An Historical Introduction to Brain Imaging and the Law, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Sage Publications, New York, 33, 171, 183.

Levy, N. (2007) The responsibility of the psychopath revisited, Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland, 14 (2), 129-138.

Libano Beristain, A. (2015) Neurociencia y proceso penal, Justicia: Revista de Derecho Procesal, 2, Bosch, Barcelona, 239-266.

López-Fragoso Álvarez, T, (1995) Las pruebas biológicas en el proceso penal. Consideraciones sobre la identificación por el ADN, DS: Derecho y Salud, Asociación Juristas de la Salud, Valencia, 3-1, 227.

Manson, N.C. y O’Neill, O. (2007) Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Meisel, A. y Kuczewski, M. (1996) Legal and ethical myths about informed consent, Archives of Internal Medicin, American Medical Association, United States, 156, 2521–2526.

Moreno, J.D. (2003) Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience and society, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Volume 4, Issue 2, Springer Nature Publishing AG, 149–153.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. 18 de Abril de 1979.

Pardo, M.S (2006) Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 33, 337.

Pustilnik, A.C. (2013) “Neurotechnologies at the Intersection of Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law”, en Parry, J. y Richardson, S. (Eds.), The Constitution and the Future of Criminal Justice in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Richard González, M. (2014) “La prueba de la culpabilidad atendiendo al nuevo paradigma propuesto por la Neurociencia”, en De Latorre Díaz, F.J. (Ed.), Neurociencia, neuroética y bioética, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid.

Rödiger, C. (2011). “The Council of Europe’s Next ‘Additional Protocol on Neuroscientific Research’? Toward an International Regulation of Brain Imaging Research”, en Spranger, T.M. (Ed.). International Neurolaw. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 103, 108.

Romeo Casabona, C.M. (1998) “El Derecho Médico: su evolución en España”, en Romeo Casabona, C.M. (Coord.), Derecho Médico y Bioética, Comares, Barcelona, 150 y ss.

Romeo Casabona, C.M. (1998) “La relación entre la Bioética y el Derecho”, en Romeo Casabona, C.M. (Coord.), Derecho Biomédico y Bioética, Comares, Barcelona, 151 y ss.

Romeo Casabona, C.M (2009) Law of Biomedical Research in Spain: a new and complete map for clínical research, Medicina Clínica, Elsevier, Barcelona, 2;132 (16):633-7.

Roskies, A (2002) Neuroethics for the new millennium, Neuron, Elsevier, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 35:21–23.

San José, D.G. (2010) Aproximación al marco legal común europeo relativo a la investigación sobre clonación humana, Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, vol.10.

Sánchez Rubio, A. (2016) El uso del test P300 en el proceso penal español: algunos aspectos controvertidos, Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, Universidad de Granada, Granada, 18-04, 21-22.

Tancredi, L.R. (2004) “Neuroscience developments and the law”, en Garland, B: Neuroscience and the. Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, Dana Press, New York, 71–113.

Tomás-Valiente Lanuza, C. (2014) La Dignidad Humana y sus Consecuencias Normativas en la Argumentación Jurídica: ¿Un Concepto Útil?, Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (España), Madrid, 102, 167-208.

Tovino, S. (2007) Imaging Body Structure and Mapping Brain Function: A Historical Approach, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Sage Publications, New York, 33.

Tovino, S. (2008) The impact of neuroscience on health law, Neuroethics, Springer, United States, 1, 101–117.

Villamarín López, M.L. (2014) Neurociencia y detección de la verdad y del engaño en el proceso penal, Marcial Pons, Madrid.

Wegmann, H. (2012) Neurolaw in an International Comparison, Spranger, T.M. International Neurolaw. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 399.

Wolpe, P.R. (2002) The neuroscience revolution, The Hastings Center Report, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 32(4):8.

Wolpe, P.R. (2013) Ethics Matter: A Conversation on Bioethics with NASA’s Paul Root Wolpe, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, Ethics Matter, New York, 10.

Yuste, R., Goering, S., Agüeray Arcas, B. et al. (2017) Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI, Nature, London, 551: 7679, 159-163.

Zigalvis, P. (2004) Placebo use in Council of Europe biomedical research instruments, Science and Engineering Ethics, Springer Science Business Media, Berlín, 10, 15–22; 163–173.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2020.49.29936

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




Copyright (c) 2020 María Sánchez Vilanova

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional.

© 2004-2019 Máster en Bioética y Derecho - Observatori de Bioètica i Dret - Cátedra UNESCO de Bioética - Universitat de Barcelona

RCUB revistesub@ub.edu Avís Legal RCUB Universitat de Barcelona