Von der Neuroethik zum Neurorecht?

• Literatur

• 1 Roskies A. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006; Sep; 10 (09) 419-423.
• 2 Walter H. Neurophilosophie der Willensfreiheit – von libertarischen Illusionen zum Konzept natürlicher Autonomie. Paderborn: Schöningh; 1998
• 3 Walter H. Neurophilosophy of Moral Responsibility: The Case for Revisionist Compatibilism. Philosophical Topics 2004; 32: 477-503.
• 4 Farah MJ. Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005; Jan; 09 (01) 34-40.
• 5 Illes J, Bird SJ. Neuroethics:a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends in Neurosciences 2006; Sep; 29 (09) 511-517.
• 6 Roskies A. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 2002; Jul 3; 35 (01) 21-23.
• 7 Illes J, Rosen AC, Huang L, Goldstein RA, Raffin TA, Swan G. et al. Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology 2004; Mar 23; 62 (06) 888-890.
• 8 Northoff G, Witzel J, Bogerts B. Was ist “Neuroethik” – eine Disziplin der Zukunft?. Nervenarzt 2006; 77: 5-11.
• 9 Moreno JD. Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience and society. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2003; Feb; 04 (02) 149-153.
• 10 Garland B. (ed). Neuroscience and the Law – Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press; 2004
• 11 Greely HT. Prediction, Litigation, Privacy and Property: Some Possible Legal and Social Implications of Advances in Neuroscience. In: Garland B. editor. Neuroscience and the Law – Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press; 2004: 114-156.
• 12 BGH, Urteil vom. 17.12.98 (1 StR 156/98).
• 13 Davatzikos C, Ruparel K, Fan Y, Shen DG, Acharyya M, Loughead JW. et al. Classifying spatial patterns of brain activity with machine learning methods: Application to lie detection. Neuroimage 2005; Nov 15; 28 (03) 663-668.
• 14 Langleben DD, Loughead JW, Bilker WB, Ruparel K, Childress AR, Busch SI. et al. Telling truth from lie in individual subjects with fast event-related fMRI. Human Brain Mapping 2005; Dec; 26 (04) 262-272.
• 15 Langleben DD, Schroeder L, Maldjian JA, Gur RC, McDonald S, Ragland JD. et al. Brain activity during simulated deception: An event-related functional magnetic resonance study. Neuroimage 2002; Mar; 15 (03) 727-732.
• 16 Kozel FA, Johnson KA, Mu QW, Grenesko EL, Laken SJ, George MS. Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry 2005; Oct 15; 58 (08) 605-613.
• 17 Schleim S, Walter H. Gedankenlesen mit dem Hirnscanner?. Nervenheilkunde 2007; 26: 505-510.
• 18 Birnbacher D. Das ontologische Leib-Seele-Problem und seine epiphänomenalistische Lösung. In: Bühler K-E. (ed). Aspekte des Leib-Seele-Problems – Philosophie, Medizin, Künstliche Intelligenz. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann; 1990
• 19 Fink GR, Markowitsch HJ, Reinkemeier M, Bruckbauer T, Kessler J, Heiss WD. Cerebral representation of one’s own past: Neural networks involved in autobiographical memory. Journal of Neuroscience 1996; Jul 1; 16 (13) 4275-4282.
• 20 Markowitsch HJ, Thiel A, Reinkemeier M, Kessler J, Koyuncu A, Heiss WD. Right amygdalar and temporofrontal activation during autobiographic, but not during fictitious memory retrieval. Behavioural Neurology 2000; 12 (04) 181-190.
• 21 Mehr zum Thema Neuround Rechtswissenschaft schrieb er in:. Markowitsch HJ. Implikationen neurowissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse für die Jurisprudenz am Beispiel von Glaubwürdigkeitsfeststellungen. Kriminalistik 2006; 10: 619-625.
• 22 In ausführlicherer Form findet sich seine Position in: Günther K. Hirnforschung und strafrechtlicher Schuldbegriff. Kritische Justiz. 2/2006.