Neuroscience in court: The painful truth
[...] "But some scientists and ethicists are concerned about where the increasing acceptance of pain imaging might lead. Pustilnik worries that it could become a sort of pass–fail test, not just forcing litigants to provide proof of their pain, but potentially making it a requirement to get prescription medications or insurance coverage. She is heading a working group at Harvard that is developing a list of ethical and scientific standards for the technologies before they become widespread." [...]
Amanda Pustilnik is Senior Fellow in Law and Applied Neuroscience. The Project for Law and Applied Neuroscience is cosponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center and the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital.
This article was also published by Scientific American (March 2, 2015).
Read the Full Article
Tags
bioethics criminal law health law policy neuroscience regulation