In Japan, we are now discussing neuroethics [We can know the detailed contents of neuroethics and the various problems by Illes (Neuroethics-defining the issues in theory, practice and policy, 2006). And concerning the situations of neuroethics in Japan, see Fukushi et al. (Neuroscience Research 57:10-16, 2007)], but have not yet argued on neurolaw in earnest. Right from the beginning, neuroethics in itself is a very new field, which has only begun within the last few years in the world [See Chiaki Kagawa (Gendaishiso (Modernthought), 34(11):188ff, 2006), Chiaki Kagawa (Gendaishiso (Modernthought), 36(7):69ff, 2008)]. Also neurolaw is a newer field and concept of law, so we are now discussing on the problem of free will, the criminal responsibility, and the problem of the limit of intervention into human brain in the field of human experimentation or enhancement as much as possible. In the field of Bioethics, however, we have accumulations of arguments on neuroethics in bioethics in Japan. Therefore, in this paper I must start to follow the situations of arguments on neuroethics in Japan, and then advance toward legal issues in the field of neuroscience in Japan, and finally consider the way to legal regulation. The decisive question is whether it is possible to shift from neuroethics to neurolaw in Japan.
|Title of host publication||International Neurolaw: A Comparative Analysis|
|Publisher||Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg|
|Number of pages||11|
|ISBN (Print)||9783642215414, 3642215408, 9783642215407|
|Publication status||Published - 2013 Nov 1|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)