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.

Analyse des enjeux éthiques attribuables au don d’organes après décès cardiocirculatoire selon l’approche bioéthique par principes

Travail dirigé présenté à la Faculté des sciences infirmières en vue de l'obtention du grade de M. Sc. en Sciences Infirmières option infirmière clinicienne

La légitimité d'une éventuelle application de la thérapie germinale humaine : les aspects juridiques et éthiques

La thérapie germinale est une avenue médicale qui est loin de pouvoir être appliquée de manière sécuritaire et responsable car les connaissances médicales actuelles sont insuffisantes. De surcroît, l'encadrement normatif qui l'entoure est unanime et clame la non-acceptabilité de son application humaine. Certains instruments adoptent une approche rigide en la prohibant formellement, d'autres adoptent une approche flexible en demeurant ouverts à une éventuelle application. Il y a donc divergence quant à la légitimité de cette technique. La médecine moderne doit reposer sur des principes directeurs issus de diverses sources, empruntées au droit et à l'éthique. Les principes retenus pour examiner la légitimité de la thérapie germinale sont tirés, d'une part, des droits et libertés fondamentales: ce sont les principes fondamentaux de dignité, de liberté, d'égalité. D'autre part, ils sont issus des règles d'éthique de la recherche: plus particulièrement le principe de bienfaisance (nonmalfaisance) et celui du respect de la personne. La perspective d'une éventuelle application humaine de la thérapie germinale ne porte pas nécessairement atteinte aux principes fondamentaux, dépendamment du genre d'application qui est envisagé. Une application restreinte, appliquée dans des circonstances particulières et en vue de soulager ou d'éliminer certaines formes de détresses et de souffrances, pourrait être conforme aux principes qui soutiennent les droits et libertés fondamentales. La thérapie germinale soulève des questions éthiques difficiles et parfois inédites, notamment l'extension des risques aux générations futures et l'obligation d'un suivi à long terme pour des descendants qui n'auront pas eux-mêmes donné leur consentement à cette «thérapie». La thérapie germinale est présentement non acceptable mais ne devrait pas faire l'objet d'une prohibition totale.

Enjeux éthiques et légaux des applications du diagnostic préimplantatoire au Canada

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de LLM en maîtrise option recherche axe Droit, Biotechnologies et Société"