ABSTRACT: This research addresses the integration of neurodiversity and cognitive justice in the context of forensic medical forensics, highlighting the need for inclusive and epistemologically fair practices to guarantee fundamental rights. It is contextualized in the growing demand for expert evaluations that respect cognitive diversity, overcoming limitations of traditional models, which are often incapable of recognizing neurodivergent specificities. The central problem involves the insufficiency of conventional forensic paradigms to ensure justice and effectiveness in judicial proceedings involving health and mental capacity issues. The main objective was to analyze how the adoption of the giftedean neoperspectivist paradigm, combined with theories of cognitive justice, neurodiversity and applied epistemology, can improve the conduct of forensic medical forensics. Methodologically, the hypothetical-deductive method and a narrative bibliographic and documentary review were used, rigorously conducted with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, covering databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO and PubMed, with specific descriptors related to neurodiversity, justice and medical expertise; 75 high-impact papers were analyzed. The main findings indicate that theoretical and epistemological triangulation promotes fairer and more inclusive expertise, while the conclusions reinforce the relevance of integrative models to reduce epistemic injustices. Gaps in professional training and standardization were identified. Limitations include the absence of direct empirical data. The research contributes theoretically and methodologically by proposing an innovative model, adding academic and social value by promoting rights and diversity in the judicial system.
Breviário et al. (Sat,) studied this question.