DOTmed Home MRI Oncology Ultrasound Molecular Imaging X-Ray Cardiology Health IT Business Affairs
News Home Parts & Service Operating Room CT Women's Health Proton Therapy Endoscopy HTMs Mobile Imaging
SEARCH
Current Location:
>
> This Story


Log in or Register to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Send us your Comments
advertisement

 

advertisement

 

More Industry Headlines

New VR app may ease MR anxiety Hope to cut down on the need to sedate patients

Scalable AI utilization insights from Montefiore at RSNA Starting with patients at risk for respiratory failure

NYU releases biggest ever MR data set in AI Facebook collaboration With fastMRI, acceleration of imaging by factor of four 'already possible'

Ramsoft partners with QliqSOFT Enables secure messaging of information on mobiles among doctors and patients

Hitachi unveils new CT scanner, Scenaria View 128, at RSNA Provides better workflow with SynergyDrive and large, 80 cm aperture

GE and VA partner to build 3D printing network Holds promise for reducing surgery imaging preparation time

DiA showcases AI solution for point-⁠of-⁠care cardiac ultrasound 'Game changer' technology now available with Vscan Extend from GE Healthcare

Spectrum Dynamics files lawsuit against GE Alleges theft of intellectual property regarding VERITON-CT

Elekta Unity MR-linac gains FDA 510(k) clearance Simultaneously delivers radiation dose and visualization of tumors

Subtle Medical closes RSNA with CE mark and FDA clearance of PET AI solution Speeds up scans by factor of four, enhanced image quality

Can neuroscience
aid the legal system?

Brain Imaging and Criminal Law

by Astrid Fiano , DOTmed News Writer
MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project (LNP) out of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is an organization devoting serious research to the use of brain imaging in criminal law. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, PhD, Co-Director of the LNP and Professor of Philosophy and Legal Studies at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, spoke to DOTmed about the goals of the Project and its research topics.

Prof. Sinnott-Armstrong explained that the project developed from the MacArthur Foundation seeking useful projects to pursue. Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, at Stanford University, suggested that the criminal justice system was in need of reform, and neuroscience could help. The Foundation approached Professor Sinnott-Armstrong, along with Art Singer, and they put together an advisory board. Dr. Michael Gazzaniga, of the University of California, Santa Barbara (future Director of the Project), and Stephen Morse, Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry from the University of Pennsylvania Law School (future Legal Director of the Project) were on the advisory board, and crucial to the successful proposal to the Foundation and inception of the project. The participants were motivated in part to use "good" neuroscience to aid the legal system and in part to avoid the influence of "bad" neuroscience in the courtroom.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

Servicing GE Nuclear Medicine equipment with OEM trained engineers

We offer full service contracts, PM contracts, rapid response, time and material,camera relocation. Nuclear medicine equipment service provider since 1975. Click or call now for more information 800 96 NUMED



Good vs. Bad

What can be considered a "bad" use of neuroscience? Professor Sinnott-Armstrong points out a recent case in India. A process involving EEGs, called the Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test (BEOS) was developed by Champadi Raman Mukundan, an Indian neuroscientist and former director of the clinical psychology department of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences in Bangalore. The results of the process were used in court for a murder case in Pune, India. According to the International Herald-Tribune, the judge cited the scan as proof the defendant's brain held guilty knowledge concerning the crime. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison. However, current brain state and imaging technology does not yet appear to function at the level of reliability most legal systems demand.

Using inferences from neuroscience for legal conclusions raises a question at every step, Professor Sinnott-Armstrong points out. As an example, an imaging procedure might be good to detect a structural abnormality within the brain, such as a tumor, but how relevant is the procedure to a legal situation--what does it have to do with criminal responsibility? In other words, can we infer from the brain scan that the person couldn't control his or her actions due to that tumor?
  Pages: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - ... >>

Related:


Advertise
Increase Your
Brand Awareness
Auctions + Private Sales
Get The
Best Price
Buy Equipment/Parts
Find The
Lowest Price
Daily News
Read The
Latest News
Directory
Browse All
DOTmed Users
Ethics on DOTmed
View Our
Ethics Program
Gold Parts Vendor Program
Receive PH
Requests
Gold Service Dealer Program
Receive RFP/PS
Requests
Healthcare Providers
See all
HCP Tools
Jobs/Training
Find/Fill
A Job
Parts Hunter +EasyPay
Get Parts
Quotes
Recently Certified
View Recently
Certified Users
Recently Rated
View Recently
Certified Users
Rental Central
Rent Equipment
For Less
Sell Equipment/Parts
Get The
Most Money
Service Technicians Forum
Find Help
And Advice
Simple RFP
Get Equipment
Quotes
Virtual Trade Show
Find Service
For Equipment
Access and use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions of our LEGAL NOTICE & PRIVACY NOTICE
Property of and Proprietary to DOTmed.com, Inc. Copyright ©2001-2018 DOTmed.com, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED