Rationality, Responsibility, and Brain Function

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (2):196 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There has been a fair amount of recent discussion about the implications that advances in neuroscience will have on the law and, in particular, legal responsibility. This discussion has been varied and includes, for example, the potential impact of neuroimaging techniques to reveal whether a defendant or witness is telling the truth, and consideration of whether our growing knowledge of brain function will warrant a revision in the law to make it more psychologically relevant.Tom Buller, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alaska Anchorage. His main research interests are in bioethics and neuroethics

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,337

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Neuroimaging, Uncertainty, and the Problem of Dispositions.Gardar Árnason - 2010 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (2):188.
Neuroethics.Katrina Sifferd - 2016 - In Vilayanur Ramachandran (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2e. Elsevier.
Gene Maps, Brain Scans, and Psychiatric Nosology.Jason Scott Robert - 2007 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (2):209-218.
Guest Editorial: Introduction to Philosophical Issues in Neuroethics.Tuija Takala - 2010 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (2):161.
Neuroethical Theories.Matti Häyry - 2010 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (2):165.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
67 (#314,990)

6 months
15 (#206,160)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tom Buller
Illinois State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references