In addition to my work as an historian, I am also a JD/MA Bioethics candidate at the University of Minnesota Law School. Ever since I first read David Eagleman’s book Incognito (2011), I’ve been enamored with the field of “neurolaw,” i.e. the intersection of law and neuroscience. I’ve been lucky to pursue this interest professionally, setting out on a path that’s taken me to Eagleman’s Center for Science & Law, the magazine Voices in Bioethics, and more recently the Shen Neurolaw Lab here at the University.
Though I’ve only been with the lab since May, things have been moving along quickly. There’s more coming down the pipeline, but I’m pleased to say that last month the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics published a co-authored essay in its “Ethics in Neuropsychology” issue. Our paper is titled “The Legal Implications of Detecting Alzheimer’s Disease Earlier” and as its lead author, I’m especially proud of it for two reasons. First, it’s been an honor to work alongside Professor Francis X. Shen, undoubtedly one of the top neurolaw scholars in the field today. The guy’s brilliant. Second, it gave the lab an opportunity to develop some “first thoughts” on a topic that will, within the next decade, move the hand of the legal system. After all, as doctors get better at detecting the physiological indicators of Alzheimer’s disease long before there are behavioral changes, how should law and medicine respond?
Here’s the abstract:
Early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) raises a number of challenging legal questions. In this essay, we explore some of those questions, such as: Is a neurological indicator of increased risk for AD a legally relevant brain state before there are any outward behavioral manifestations? How should courts address evidentiary challenges to the admissibility of AD-related neuroimaging? How should the government regulate the marketing of neuroimaging diagnostic tools? How should insurance coverage for the use of these new tools be optimized? We suggest that many voices and multidisciplinary perspectives are needed to answer these questions and ensure that legal responses are swift, efficient, and equitable.
You can read the full article on my Academia.edu page here.