Les neurosciences au Tribunal : de la responsabilité à la dangerosité, enjeux éthiques soulevés par la nouvelle loi française

AIM: In the past few years, spectacular progress in neuroscience has led to the emergence of a new interdisciplinary field, the so-called "neurolaw" whose goal is to explore the effects of neuroscientific discoveries on legal proceedings and legal rules and standards. In the United States, a number of neuroscientific researches are designed specifically to explore legally relevant topics and a case-law has already been developed. In Europe, neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in criminal courtrooms, as part of psychiatric testimony, nourishing the debate about the legal implications of brain research in psychiatric-legal settings. Though largely debated, up to now the use of neuroscience in legal contexts had not specifically been regulated by any legislation. In 2011, with the new bioethics law, France has become the first country to admit by law the use of brain imaging in judicial expertise. According to the new law, brain imaging techniques can be used only for medical purposes, or scientific research, or in the context of judicial expertise. This study aims to give an overview of the current state of the neurolaw in the US and Europe, and to investigate the ethical issues raised by this new law and its potential impact on the rights and civil liberties of the offenders. METHOD: An overview of the emergence and development of "neurolaw" in the United States and Europe is given. Then, the new French law is examined in the light of the relevant debates in the French parliament. Consequently, we outline the current tendencies in Neurolaw literature to focus on assessments of responsibility, rather than dangerousness. This tendency is analysed notably in relation to the legal context relevant to criminal policies in France, where recent changes in the legislation and practice of forensic psychiatry show that dangerousness assessments have become paramount in the process of judicial decision. Finally, the potential interpretations of neuroscientific data introduced into psychiatric testimonies by judges are explored. RESULTS: The examination of parliamentary debates showed that the new French law allowing neuroimaging techniques in judicial expertise was introduced in the aim to provide a legal framework that would protect the subject against potential misuses of neuroscience. The underlying fear above all, was that this technology be used as a lie detector, or as a means to predict the subject's behaviour. However, the possibility of such misuse remains open. Contrary to the legislator's wish, the defendant is not fully guaranteed against uses of neuroimaging techniques in criminal courts that would go against their interests and rights. In fact, the examination of the recently adopted legislation in France shows that assessments of dangerousness and of risk of recidivism have become central elements of the criminal policy, which makes it possible, if not likely that neuroimaging techniques be used for the evaluation of the dangerousness of the defendant. This could entail risks for the latter, as judges could perceive neuroscientific data as hard evidence, more scientific and reliable than the soft data of traditional psychiatry. If such neuroscientific data are interpreted as signs of potential dangerousness of a subject rather than as signs of criminal responsibility, defendants may become subjected to longer penalties or measures aiming to ensure public safety in the detriment of their freedom. CONCLUSION: In the current context of accentuated societal need for security, the judge and the expert-psychiatrist are increasingly asked to evaluate the dangerousness of a subject, regardless of their responsibility. Influenced by this policy model, the judge might tend to use neuroscientific data introduced by an expert as signs of dangerousness. Such uses, especially when they subjugate an individual's interest to those of society, might entail serious threats to an individual's freedom and civil liberties.

Les critères STOPP/START.v2 : adaptation en langue française. [STOPP/START.v2 criteria: Adaptation into French language]

Objectif STOPP/START est un outil de détection de la prescription médicamenteuse potentiellement inappropriée chez la personne de 65 ans ou plus. La version initiale de 2008 vient d'être mise à jour et améliorée par ses auteurs. Nous en présentons l'adaptation et la validation en langue française. Méthodes L'adaptation en français de l'outil STOPP/START.v2 a été réalisée par deux experts, confirmée par la méthode de traduction-inverse, et finalisée d'après les commentaires de neufs évaluateurs francophones, gériatres, pharmaciens cliniciens, et médecin généraliste de quatre pays (France, Belgique, Suisse, Canada). La validation a été complétée par une analyse de concordance inter-juge (CCI) des critères STOPP/START.v2 appliqués à dix vignettes cliniques standardisées. Résultats Les 115 critères de STOPP/START.v2 en français sont, par rapport à la version originale anglaise, identiques par leur classification mais adaptés en termes de présentation (critères START.v2 commençant par la condition clinique, et accompagnés par une justification du caractère inapproprié de l'omission) voire de formulation de certains critères. Cette adaptation en français est validée par (i) la traduction-inverse montrant le respect du sens clinique de la version originale, (ii) l'identification semblable des critères lorsque appliqués à dix vignettes cliniques par les neuf évaluateurs, et (iii) le haut niveau de concordance de ces neuf évaluations tant pour STOPP.v2 (CCI 0,849) que pour START.v2 (CCI 0,921). Conclusion L'adaptation en langue française des critères STOPP/START.v2 fournit aux cliniciens un outil de détection de la prescription médicamenteuse potentiellement inappropriée chez les personnes de 65 ans et plus qui est logique, fiable et facile à utiliser. Objective STOPP/START is a screening tool to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in persons aged 65 or older. Its Irish authors recently updated and improved the initially published version of 2008. We present the adaptation and validation into French language of this updated tool. Methods STOPP/START.v2 was adapted into French by two experts, then confirmed by a translation-back translation method and finalised according to the comments of nine French-speaking assessors - geriatricians, pharmacologists and a general physician - from four countries (France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada). The validation was completed by an inter-rater reliability (IRR) analysis of the STOPP/START.v2 criteria applied to 10 standardized clinical vignettes. Results In comparison to the original English version, the 115 STOPP/START.v2 criteria in French language classify in identical manner, but the presentation has been adjusted (START.v2 first specifies the clinical condition followed by an explanation of the inappropriateness of the prescription or omission). This adaptation into French language was validated by means of (i) the translation/back-translation, which showed that the French version complied with the clinical meaning of the original criteria; (ii) the similar screening results when applied by the nine specialists to the 10 cases; and (iii) the high level of inter-rater reliability of these 9 evaluations, for both STOPP (IRR 0.849) and START.v2 (IRR 0.921). Conclusion The adaptation into French of the STOPP/START.v2 criteria provides clinicians with a screening tool to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in patients aged 65 and older that is more logical, more reliable and easier to use.

Etude descriptive des médicaments non utilisés collectés dans une officine française de la Région Centre

[...] Cette étude a permis d'évaluer ce que représente le coût des MNU [médicaments non utilisés] à l'officine sur une période donnée. Les résultats ont traduit un gaspdlage certain des ressources de santé. La fin du recyclage humanitaire des médicaments étant décidé par les autorités publiques depuis le 11 janvier 2007, la collecte des MNU à l'officine garde un intérêt dans la protection de l'environnement et la prévention des accidents domestiques. Mais les pharmaciens pourraient participer à la prévention de ces gaspillages par un renforcement des mesures d'informations sur le bon usage des médicaments et par une attention particulière donnée au monitoring et au soutien de l'adhésion thérapeutique des patients ('programmes de soins pharmaceutiques).[Auteure, p. 4]