To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Neurorights.
Journal articles on the topic 'Neurorights'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Neurorights.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Borbón Rodríguez, Diego Alejandro, Luisa Fernanda Borbón Rodríguez, and María Alejandra León Bustamante. "NeuroRight to Equal Access to Mental Augmentation." Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, no. 16 (July 6, 2021): 01–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.14422/rib.i16.y2021.006.
Full textAbstract:
This paper addresses the different discussions that led to the creation of the NeuroRights Initiative and the proposal for a NeuroRight to equal access to mental augmentation. Then it presents some conceptual clarifications, and subsequently makes a detailed analysis of the proposal in light of posthumanism. In this sense, it studies how this NeuroRight may lead to inequality, loss of social diversity and pressures on sociocultural and religious diversity. It also studies the problems and challenges inherent to the implementation of this type of initiative. We propose that a NeuroRight to enhancement should not be incorporated and that equitable access to technologies should be limited to therapeutic purposes only.
2
Flores Filho, Edgar Gastón Jacobs, and Marina Castro Firmo. "Human Dignity and neurorights in the Digital Age." Brazilian Journal of Law, Technology and Innovation 1, no. 2 (2023): 87–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.59224/bjlti.v1i2.87-107.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper we explore the emerging field of neurorights, which has gained significance due to the advancements in neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence. The once-fictional notion of mind invasion or manipulation by technological devices has now become a pressing concern, necessitating further study and legal regulation. Neurorights encompass a range of rights associated with the interface between neuroscience and law, including brain-machine interfaces, wearable and implantable devices, and advanced algorithms. This article seeks to define and classify neurorights, providing a systematic framework for their study. It also delves into the complex concept of human dignity, examining how neurorights relate to this fundamental principle. The paper begins by tracing the evolution of neurorights studies and classifications, highlighting the global research movement in this area. It then explores existing and proposed regulations concerning neurorights, with a specific focus on the innovative Charter of Digital Rights being developed in Spain. The authors argue that human dignity serves as the foundational principle for neurorights, emphasizing its importance in shaping the discourse and implementation of these rights. Although this article presents an introductory approach to the topic, it contributes to the ongoing discussion on neurorights. By addressing the need for further research and regulation, this paper aims to raise awareness and foster a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities posed by the intersection of neuroscience and law.
3
M. Astobiza, Aníbal, and íñigo de Miguel Beriain. "From neurorights to neuroduties: the case of personal identity." Bioethics Open Research 2 (November 27, 2024): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/bioethopenres.17501.2.
Full textAbstract:
Background The neurorights initiative has been postulated as a way of ensuring the protection of individuals from the advances of neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI). With the advancement of neurotechnology, the human nervous system may be altered, modified, intervened with, or otherwise controlled. However, how do neurorights safeguard legal interests when an individual consciously chooses to modify their experiences using neurotechnology? Neurorights—the protection of cognitive liberty, psychological continuity, free will, personal identity, and mental privacy—are challenged when individuals opt for ‘artificial memories’, implanted experiences, etc., disrupting their natural cognitive dimensions. The present article examines these complex dilemmas through a legal and ethical lens. Furthermore, it introduces the concept of a ‘neuroduty’ to preserve identity, a moral obligation that stands in stark contrast to the individual’s right to self-determination. In the same way that neurorights protect us from external interference in our nervous system, is it possible to think of a neuroduty to preserve our identity? This article explores the tensions between neurorights, neuroduty, and the potential misuse of neurotechnology. Methods First, we explore these dilemmas, investigating the often-blurred lines between neurotechnology, neurorights, and personal autonomy. Secondly, we focus into the concept of voluntary alterations of one’s own brain, assessing the wider implications such actions could have on both individual and societal levels, in the light of the concept of neuroduty to preserve personal identity. Also, we examine the potential repercussions on personal identity and interpersonal relations. Finally, we advocate for a reassessment and potential reformulation of existing neurorights frameworks to account for the personal autonomy to use advancing neuroscientific capabilities. Results Our examination reveals a complex interplay between neurorights and neuroduty to preserve personal autonomy. Conclusions This analysis will provide valuable insights for stakeholders, policymakers, and society at large, guiding the responsible integration of neurotechnology into our lives.
4
M. Astobiza, Aníbal, and íñigo de Miguel Beriain. "From neurorights to neuroduties: the case of personal identity." Bioethics Open Research 2 (February 9, 2024): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/bioethopenres.17501.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background The neurorights initiative has been postulated as a way of ensuring the protection of individuals from the advances of neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI). With the advancement of neurotechnology, the human nervous system may be altered, modified, intervened with, or otherwise controlled. However, how do neurorights safeguard legal interests when an individual consciously chooses to modify their experiences using neurotechnology? Neurorights—the protection of cognitive liberty, psychological continuity, free will, personal identity, and mental privacy—are challenged when individuals opt for ‘artificial memories’, implanted experiences, etc., disrupting their natural cognitive dimensions. The present article examines these complex dilemmas through a legal and ethical lens. Furthermore, it introduces the concept of a ‘neuroduty’ to preserve identity, a moral obligation that stands in stark contrast to the individual’s right to self-determination. In the same way that neurorights protect us from external interference in our nervous system, is it possible to think of a neuroduty to preserve our identity? This article explores the tensions between neurorights, neuroduty, and the potential misuse of neurotechnology. Methods First, we explore these dilemmas, investigating the often-blurred lines between neurotechnology, neurorights, and personal autonomy. Secondly, we focus into the concept of voluntary alterations of one’s own brain, assessing the wider implications such actions could have on both individual and societal levels, in the light of the concept of neuroduty to preserve personal identity. Also, we examine the potential repercussions on personal identity and interpersonal relations. Finally, we advocate for a reassessment and potential reformulation of existing neurorights frameworks to account for the personal autonomy to use advancing neuroscientific capabilities. Results Our examination reveals a complex interplay between neurorights and neuroduty to preserve personal autonomy. Conclusions This analysis will provide valuable insights for stakeholders, policymakers, and society at large, guiding the responsible integration of neurotechnology into our lives.
5
Jecker, Nancy S., and Andrew Ko. "Are Neurorights Global?" AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 369–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257151.
Full text
6
Yuste, Rafael. "Neurorights in neurology." Lancet Neurology 24, no. 5 (2025): 386. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(25)00124-3.
Full text
7
Struić, Gordan. "The Regulation of Neurorights in National Legislation: What Should be Kept in Mind?" British Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and History 3, no. 2 (2023): 01–08. http://dx.doi.org/10.32996/pjpsh.2023.3.2.1.
Full textAbstract:
The rapid development of neurotechnologies and achievements in their practical application, as well as the increasing use of methods based on the application of artificial intelligence, represent a great reason for satisfaction, but also for concern about possible cases of their abuse. For this reason, the importance of the existence of rules, so called neurorights, that should guarantee adequate protection and preservation of the human brain and mind, is emphasized in the literature. Those rules are not only constructed at the theoretical level, but gradually become part of the normative framework of various countries and are increasingly discussed at the international level. Although there are numerous studies on neurorights, especially from the perspective of the debate on whether there is a need to regulate them as new human rights, the question of how this could be done by national legislation has not yet entered the narrower focus of research attention. To this end, by using the relevant literature, as well as the existing normative framework of various countries that regulate neurorights, the author of this article tries to contribute to discussions related to neurorights and to stimulate scientific interest in further reflection and research on the topic.
8
Borbón Rodríguez, Diego Alejandro, Luisa Fernanda Borbón Rodríguez, and Jeniffer Laverde Pinzón. "Análisis crítico de los NeuroDerechos Humanos al libre albedrío y al acceso equitativo a tecnologías de mejora." IUS ET SCIENTIA 6, no. 2 (2020): 135–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ietscientia.2020.i02.10.
Full textAbstract:
Advances in neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence have led to an innovative proposal to establish ethical and legal limits to the development of technologies: Human NeuroRights. In this sense, the article addresses, first, some advances in neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence, as well as their ethical implications. Second, the state of the art on the innovative proposal of Human NeuroRights is exposed, specifically, the proposal of the NeuroRights Initiative of Columbia University. Third, the proposal for the rights of free will and equitable access to augmentation technologies is critically analyzed to conclude that, although it is necessary to propose new regulations for neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence, the debate is still very premature as if to try to incorporate a new category of human rights that may be inconvenient or unnecessary. Finally, some considerations on how to regulate new technologies are explained and the conclusions of the work are presented.
9
Cornejo-Plaza, Isabel. "Chilean neurorights legislation and its relevance for mental health: Criticisms and outlook." Salud mental 46, no. 5 (2023): 269–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.17711/sm.0185-3325.2023.034.
Full textAbstract:
Background. Recently, the academic world has established a series of reconfigurations of emerging human rights, in order to safeguard the mental integrity of people exposed to neurotechnologies. The recommendations of different stakeholders and a literature review support regulation of these technologies. There are different proposals for regulation, some in soft law and others in objective law. The type of regulation chosen can have repercussions on clinical practice, research, and public policy. The constitutional enactment of neurorights in Chile has been criticized in the academic fields of neuroethics and law as having potential negative effects on mental health research. Objective. To analyze in light of the available literature whether the construction of neurorights could create ethical conflicts in the field of mental health, or if it could offer protection against the disruptive use of various neurotechnologies. Method. This analysis included a narrative review of studies included in the PsycInfo, Springer, JSTOR, Medline, Scopus, PubMed, CINALH, and Web of Science databases, without restrictions on language or year of publication. Results. The enactment of neurorights as hard law is found not to be detrimental to the field of mental health. Discussion and conclusion. This article argues that the regulation of neurorights does not threaten the framework of an ecosystem that uses neurotechnologies. On the contrary, such regulation offers protections to people within the complex system of neurotechnologies.
10
Feito, Lydia. "The Difficulty of Universal Neurorights." AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 380–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257188.
Full text
11
Ratto Trabucco, Fabio. "Neurorights between ethical and legal implications." CUADERNOS DE DERECHO TRANSNACIONAL 15, no. 1 (2023): 750–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2023.7561.
Full textAbstract:
Advances in neuroimaging and brain-machine interfacing (BMI) increasingly enable the large-scale collection and further processing of neural data as well as the modulation of neural processes. In parallel, progresses in artificial intelligence (AI), especially in machine learning, create new possibilities for decoding and analysing neural data for various purposes including health monitoring, screening for disease, cognitive enhancement, and device control. This contribution discusses some major ethical, technical, and regulatory issues associated with neural data analytics and delineates a roadmap for responsible innovation in this sector. Moreover, this paper review a variety of themes including mind reading, mental privacy, cybersecurity in commercial BMI, and issues of neurotechnology governance. Finally, a framework for responsible innovation and governance is presented.
12
Muhammad Sohail Asghar and Hafsa Naz. "Neurorights - Minding the Integrity of Mind." Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies 3, no. 1 (2025): 1816–24. https://doi.org/10.59075/sjehqw96.
Full textAbstract:
Rapid development in neuroscience in the recent years has ushered in a new era in accessing, maneuvering and sharing information from human brain. Manipulation of the human neural processes through neurological technologies has posed a profound threat to human dignity and privacy with a grave risk to violate the ultimate sanctuary of human freedom – his mind. The application of such neurotechnologies pose prominent challenges to human rights values and several ethical and legal concerns must be focused tin order to counter any inadvertent effects. The allusions posed by the emergence of contemporary neurotechnology with reference to the current human rights mechanism are evaluated in this paper and it is concluded that existing human rights regime is insufficient to address these emergent concerns. An inclusive analysis of the liaison between human rights and neurotechnologies represents the dire need of four new human rights that may adopt prime importance in the near future. These rights are as to mental privacy, mental integrity, cognitive liberty, and the psychological continuity.
13
Cornejo, Y. "Neurorights, Neurotechnologies and Personal Data: Review of the Challenges of Mental Autonomy." Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 2, no. 3 (2024): 711–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.36.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: to present the results of a systematic review of research on the impact of neurotechnology on legal concepts and regulatory frameworks, addressing ethical and social issues related to the protection of individual rights, privacy and mental autonomy.Methods: The systematic literature review was based on the methodology proposed by a renowned British scholar, a professor emerita of computer science at Keele University Barbara Kitchenham, chosen for its flexibility and effectiveness in obtaining results for publication. Thorough searches were carried out with the search terms “neurotechnology”, “personal data”, “mental privacy”, “neuro-rights”, “neurotechnological interventions”, and “neurotechnological discrimination” on both English and Spanish sites, using search engines like Google Scholar and Redib as well as databases including Scielo, Dialnet, Redalyc, Lilacs, Scopus, Medline, and Pubmed. The focus of this research is bibliometric data and its design is non-experimental with a cross-sectional and descriptive, using content analysis based on PRISMA model.Results: the study emphasizes the need to establish clear ethical principles to protect individual rights and promote responsible use of neurotechnologies; a number of problems of mental autonomy were identified, such as improper handling of information, lack of legal security guarantees, violation of rights and freedoms in the medical sphere. The author shows the need to adapt the existing regulatory legal framework to address the ethical and social problems arising from the new neurotechnologies. It is noted that a broad study of neurotechnology issues will contribute to the protection of human rights.Scientific novelty: an expanded understanding of the five neurorights within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is proposed; neurorights are viewed as a new category of rights aimed at protecting mental integrity against the misuse of neurotechnologies. The author justifies the adoption of such technocratic principles as personal identity, free will, mental privacy, equal access and protection against bias.Practical significance: the obtained results are relevant for understanding modern legal concepts related to neurorights and for adapting the existing normative legal acts to solve ethical and social problems arising from the emergence of new technologies, protection of human neurorights and liability for their violation. The study of these issues is key for provision of further responsible development and use of neurotechnologies.
14
Asghar, Muhammad Sohail, and Hafsa Naz. "Codifying Neurorights: A Legal Imperative for the Neural Age." ACADEMIA International Journal for Social Sciences 4, no. 3 (2025): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.63056/acad.004.03.0330.
Full textAbstract:
The rapid developments in the field of neurotechnology and neuroscience have caused profound challenges to individual rights, particularly regarding mental integrity and privacy. This paper discusses neurorights as the required legal and ethical framework to protect cognitive autonomy in the digital era. The study is based on preliminary research on neuroethics and human rights law and highlights the inadequacy of the current legal frameworks to respond to the intrusive potential of neurotechnologies that can bypass consent requirements and can access and modify neural data. The study argues that mental integrity and privacy, which are the fundamental aspects of human dignity, are more threatened than ever, requiring an immediate regulatory and normative response. The research recommends that in order to ensure the benefits of neurotechnology, without undermining human dignity, the states and institutions need to codify neurorights as part of emerging human rights regime in the neural age.
15
Fyfe, Shannon, Elizabeth Lanphier, and Andrew Peterson. "Neurorights for Incarcerated Persons: Should We Curb Inflation?" AJOB Neuroscience 13, no. 3 (2022): 165–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2022.2082585.
Full text
16
de Groot, Nina F., Vera Tesink, and Gerben Meynen. "Nissenbaum and Neurorights: The Jury is Still Out." AJOB Neuroscience 15, no. 2 (2024): 136–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2024.2326967.
Full text
17
Ishida, Shu, and Ryuma Shineha. "In Defense of the Cultural Insensitivity of Neurorights." AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 385–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257158.
Full text
18
Spichak, JMIR Correspondent, Simon. "The Controversial Push for New Brain and Neurorights." Journal of Medical Internet Research 27 (February 25, 2025): e72270. https://doi.org/10.2196/72270.
Full text
19
Gilbert, Frederic, and Ingrid Russo. "Neurorights: The Land of Speculative Ethics and Alarming Claims?" AJOB Neuroscience 15, no. 2 (2024): 113–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2024.2328244.
Full text
20
Ota, Koji. "Neurorights to Free Will: Remaining in Danger of Impossibility." AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 377–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257156.
Full text
21
Webster, Helen S., and Lauren R. Sankary. "Re-Routing Along the Path to Enshrine Global Neurorights." AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 375–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257173.
Full text
22
Valenzuela, Corales María de los Andes. "Neuroderechos: hacia una fundamentación filosófica." Encuentros. Revista de Ciencias Humanas, Teoría Social y Pensamiento Crítico 16, Universidad Nacional Experimental Rafael María Baralt (2022): 374–91. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6917081.
Full textAbstract:
Today, it is an inescapable reality that advances in neurotechnology have experienced a significant advance, bringing to the fore the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of scrutinizing and even controlling the human brain, and along with it our emotions or thoughts. This reality has given rise to currents within the Law, which advocate the systematization and regulation of a set of rights associated with the protection and defense of a kind of indemnity or inviolability of "the mental". Even granting the category of fundamental human right to this series of so-called neuro-rights. The essay that follows aims to answer the question about what philosophical commitment exists behind a proposal for neurorights legislation. In order to elucidate such essential issues as the possibility of certainty about the existence of other minds, as a basic presupposition to formulate any type of regulation.
23
Farinella, F., and E. E. Gulyaeva. "Neurorights: Time to Discuss Rights to Mental Privacy and Integrity." Lex Genetica 3, no. 3 (2024): 44–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/lexgen-2024-3-3-44-61.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this paper is to describe how artificial intelligence, algorithms, and deep learning can influence fundamental rights such as privacy and integrity. The authors consider the current protection of these rights the international level with a focus on Russian and European legislation. The authors also discuss whether AI poses a new threat to the protection of fundamental rights, and whether new laws should be established to deal with those violations. The study involves qualitative research methods, aimed at understanding people’s beliefs, experience, attitudes, behaviour, their interactions with social media and AI, as well as the analysis of sources of international and domestic law. The results have implications for new well-being interventions which look at the relationship between the internet and AI and their influence on individual privacy and mental integrity. The authors attempt to evaluate whether the right to privacy requires any special protection in the age of artificial intelligence, and if so, what do we mean by rights to mental privacy and integrity?
24
McCullum, Tilmon, and Laura Camila Contreras Mancera. "Neurotechnology Combined with Artificial Intelligence and Neurorights: A Legal Discussion." Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial, no. 39 (February 5, 2025): 145–83. https://doi.org/10.18601/16571959.n39.06.
Full textAbstract:
Este estudio examina la intersección entre la velocidad de producción de la inteligencia artificial y los riesgos inherentes que enfrentan los gobiernos de naciones soberanas en la legislación de cumplimiento regulatorio para el uso transfronterizo de datos, la ética en la IA y la bioética. Se expone el amplio vector necesario para salvaguardar la adquisición de información sensible en tiempo real proveniente de interacciones humano-IA, abarcando perspectivas neuronales del córtex sensorial humano, marcadores biométricos y datos fisiológicos humanos críticos para el cálculo de la inteligencia artificial en la obtención de conocimientos académicos sobre los seres humanos. La precisión y exactitud en el cálculo son esenciales para que la Inteligencia General Artificial (AGI) y la Inteligencia Artificial Superinteligente (ASI) produzcan respuestas éticas, imparciales y en tiempo real. A través de un enfoque multidisciplinario, esta investigación evalúa el impacto de las tecnologías de IA en la política exterior de los gobiernos, el desarrollo socioeconómico, la postura de seguridad nacional y la legislación soberana. Para que los gobiernos capitalicen las inversiones en IA, este artículo propone la creación de un centro centralizado de procesamiento de macrodatos para la supervisión en tiempo real de la IA (gobernanza) y el desarrollo de algoritmos que implementen marcos prácticos de tecnología de telemetría de macrodatos. Como beneficio para los sectores públicos, este estudio plantea la necesidad de legislación y marcos regulatorios que equilibren la innovación con el respeto a la seguridad nacional y la protección de los derechos individuales, ofreciendo recomendaciones políticas integrales para abordar estos desafíos.
25
Shook, John R., and James Giordano. "Designing New Neurorights: Tasking and Translating Them to All Humanity." AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 372–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257175.
Full text
26
Borbón, Diego, Luisa Borbón, Ximena Mora-Gómez, and Sandra Villamil-Mayoral. "El preocupante clausulado de la Ley Modelo de Neuroderechos del Parlatino." IUS ET SCIENTIA 2, no. 9 (2023): 228–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/iestscientia.2023.i02.11.
Full textAbstract:
Recientemente, el Parlamento Latinoamericano y Caribeño (Parlatino) promulgó una Ley Modelo sobre Neuroderechos con el propósito de crear las bases para que los países miembros legislen en esa materia. Sin embargo, los documentos presentados por el Parlatino podrían adolecer de serios vicios de fundamentación teórica, conceptual y científica, así como de contener, y desconocer, importantes debates neuroéticos. En este artículo buscamos poner de presente los principales reparos frente al documento presentado para servir como Ley Modelo, así como del Anexo “Marco teórico conceptual general”. En ese sentido, hacemos un especial llamado al debate académico, científico y político, sin incurrir en proposiciones normativas apresuradas e inadecuadas. Por tales consideraciones, sugerimos no incorporar la Ley Modelo propuesta. Por el contrario, proponemos que, en lugar de crear normas ambiguas, abstractas y generales, se legislen y se lleguen a acuerdos internacionales en materias concretas con base en los riesgos reales de la neurotecnología, de tal manera que las regulaciones verdaderamente protejan. Hasta entonces, los comentarios críticos que desde la academia se han planteado, son una necesaria crítica que disputa el papel de los neuroderechos en el entorno político global.
27
Rainey, Stephen, and Pedro Dalese. "An alternative focus on data in the neurorights discussion – Lessons from Brazil." Bioethics Open Research 1 (August 10, 2023): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/bioethopenres.17480.1.
Full textAbstract:
Developments in neurotechnology are prompting concerns about the concepts of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty, among others. Many researchers and some policymakers have begun to propose that novel human rights are required to meet the challenges emerging neurotechnology poses. These proposals have seen high-profile discussion, gaining already state-level recognition in Chile. Others advocate a different approach by concentrating on data protection. This brief recommends this kind of focus in order to (i) help researchers to regulate the pace of development and (ii) respect the potential for risks to individuals by permitting them greater control over how their neurodata is used. A data-centred approach is an agile means of providing legal and ethical protection and permitting the direction of neurotechnology development toward producing positive impacts. This brief also refers to legislative change in Brazil, contrasted with Chile, where data law is to be revised to pre-empt neurotechnological issues. The Brazilian model emerges as an alternative that ought to be replicated by other lawmakers globally.
28
Wexler, Anna. "At the Crossroads of Neuroethics and Policy: Navigating Neurorights and Neurotechnology Governance." AJOB Neuroscience 15, no. 2 (2024): 77–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2024.2330570.
Full text
29
Rainey, Stephen, and Pedro Dalese. "An alternative focus on data in the neurorights discussion – Lessons from Brazil." Bioethics Open Research 1 (January 9, 2024): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/bioethopenres.17480.2.
Full textAbstract:
Developments in neurotechnology are prompting concerns about the concepts of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty, among others. Many researchers and some policymakers have begun to propose that novel human rights are required to meet the challenges emerging neurotechnology poses. These proposals have seen high-profile discussion, gaining already state-level recognition in Chile. Others advocate a different approach by concentrating on data protection. This policy brief recommends this kind of focus in order to (i) help researchers to regulate the pace of development and (ii) respect the potential for risks to individuals by permitting them greater control over how their neurodata is used. A data-centred approach is an agile means of providing legal and ethical protection and permitting the direction of neurotechnology development toward producing positive impacts. This brief also refers to legislative change in Brazil, contrasted with Chile, where data law is to be revised to pre-empt neurotechnological issues. The Brazilian model emerges as an alternative that ought to be replicated by other lawmakers globally.
30
Gilbert, Frederic, and Ingrid Russo. "Making the Cut: What Could Be Evidence for a ‘Minimal Definition of the Neurorights’?" AJOB Neuroscience 14, no. 4 (2023): 382–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257200.
Full text
31
Gutiérrez Proenza, Janetsy. "Neuroderechos y derechos humanos en la era de la neurotecnología: ¿Regulación necesaria o inevitable?" Iuris Dictio, no. 36 (July 11, 2025): 17. https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.i36.3532.
Full textAbstract:
This paper explores the regulatory importance of neurorights based on technological development and the need to establish a balance between scientific and technological innovation and the protection of fundamental human rights. The development of neurotechnologies in the mapping of the brain makes it necessary to observe the responsible and ethical use of these. In Ecuador we will see that, although there are regulations that can provide a close answer to the issue, they do not contemplate some of the assumptions of use of these technologies, so it is essential to develop new regulatory frameworks. The research uses a qualitative, descriptive and exegetical methodology, contrasting legal regulations with the experiences of organizations that already manage these technologies, in order to understand the ethical and legal challenges we face today.
32
Charaja Bejar, Wilder Luis. "Implicancias jurídicas de la neurotecnología omnipresente e inteligencia artificial en la Cuarta Revolución Industrial: los neuroderechos emergentes." Lucerna Iuris et Investigatio, no. 5 (December 30, 2023): 25–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/lucerna.n5.26950.
Full textAbstract:
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is giving rise to legal implications of various kinds, however the one generated by the combination of ubiquitous neurotechnology and artificial intelligence is more transcendental, since this neurorevolution by enabling the extraclinical exploitation of brain data poses challenges for human rights, since that expose individuals to intrusion into the most intimate aspects of their private lives, the risk of having their data hacked, interference with confidentiality and digital surveillance. Therefore, in the context of Industry 4.0 or Industrial Revolution Stage Four, the need to guarantee emerging neurorights related to cognitive freedom, mental privacy, mental integrity and psychological continuity through specific regulations is evident. Furthermore, the consolidation of such neurospecific rights or rights of the mind is a recommendation of specialized academia and a concern of human rights organizations, which must be addressed before it is too late.
33
Rodrigues, Luiz Antônio, Cleto Amorim Silva Cavalcante, Giselle Karolina Gomes Freitas Ibiapina, et al. "LIBERDADE COGNITIVA COMO UM DIREITO FUNDAMENTAL." Revista ft 29, no. 140 (2024): 38–39. https://doi.org/10.69849/revistaft/ar10202411301338.
Full textAbstract:
The study of fundamental rights emerges in a rapidly changing legal and social landscape, driven by technological advances and new digital realities. As traditional concepts of dignity and freedom are reassessed, new dimensions of protection emerge, such as mental privacy and cognitive freedom, which are particularly relevant in light of the rise of neurorights. The increasing integration of neurotechnology and digital technologies into everyday life imposes the need for a critical review of current legislation to ensure that fundamental rights adapt to new demands and challenges. This study aims to explore the evolution and applicability of these rights, offering an in-depth analysis of the ways in which they can be expanded and adapted to ensure the cognitive autonomy and psychological protection of individuals in a context where the boundaries between the digital and the biological are increasingly blurred. The research seeks to fill gaps in the existing literature and promote an essential debate on the effectiveness of current legal protections and the formulation of public policies appropriate for the digital age.
34
Divino, Sthéfano. "Brief considerations on ethics for artificial intelligence neurotechnologies." Ciência da Informação Express 5 (October 2, 2024): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.60144/v5i.2024.120.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction: implants and technological devices are being used to decode neural activity to move a prosthetic arm, control an avatar, and turn thoughts into text through an AI-based decoder. These situations are designed by Brain-computer Interface (BCI), one of the main AI-based neurotechnologies used to understand the brain and to improve people's welfare. In 2023, UNESCO already recognized its benefits but also revealed the potential ethical issues and problems, particularly with its use of non-invasive interventions. Objective: so, this essay aims to answer the following research question: which Ethical standards can be designed and used to balance the person’s rights with technological development to prevent vulnerability situations? Method: the methods used in this work is the bibliographic research plus the hermeneutic interpretation. Results: it proposes Ethical standards for protecting the rights of the vulnerable to ensure that these rights are respected. Conclusions: there is no need for the creation of a new neurorights. Privacy and intimacy can and will deal with all the issues of neurotechnologies. However, it is necessary to improve the protection of the owner's rights through strong ethical and governance standards.
35
Strickland, Eliza, and Maria Gallucci. "First Win for the Neurorights Campaign: Chile plans to regulate all neurotech and ban the sale of brain data." IEEE Spectrum 59, no. 1 (2022): 26–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/mspec.2022.9676352.
Full text
36
Diaz Navarro, David Ernesto. "La cumbre de los neuroderechos no humanos: una reflexión bioética sobre la dicotomía existencial robot humanizado y humano robotizado." IUS ET SCIENTIA 10, no. 2 (2024): 171–82. https://doi.org/10.12795/iestscientia.2024.i02.08.
Full textAbstract:
El objetivo de esta investigación es analizar, desde tres dimensiones, los derechos del ser humano, en contraste con los derechos de las máquinas: (1) la inteligencia natural frente a la inteligencia artificial, (2) el aspecto intelectivo (sense) y el aspecto emotivo (sensibility) de la razón y (3) el aspecto de la corporalidad cibernética de los androides, respecto de la corporalidad orgánica de los seres humanos (incluidos, claro está, los cíborgs). La delimitación implica cuestionar hasta qué punto es plausible predicar derechos (o, si se prefiere, ciberderechos) a la máquina, sobre el fundamento de que ésta posee una razón equivalente o superior a la del ser humano.
37
ШТОДИНА, Дарья Дмитриевна. "«НЕЙРОПРОСТРАНСТВО» И ПРАВА ЧЕЛОВЕКА: ДИСКУССИОННЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ". Труды по Интеллектуальной Собственности 51, № 4 (2024): 66–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/tis.2024.23973.
Full textAbstract:
В последнее время на универсальном и региональном международно-правовом уровнях обсуждается возможность рассмотрения «нейроправ» в контексте прав и свобод человека. Организация Объединенных Наций включила «нейроправа» в повестку XXI в. Научная дискуссия связана прежде всего с необходимостью разработки источника международного права по «нейроправам», а также с неизбежной «реконцептуализацией» прав человека и источников международного права применительно к «нейротехнологиям». Так, фонд NeuroRights в 2022 г. представил доклад «Пробелы в международной защите прав человека в эпоху нейротехнологий» (International Human Rights Protection Gaps in the Age of Neurotechnology), в котором рассматриваются международно-правовые лакуны в действующих документах ООН по правам человека в связи с появлением «нейроправ». Ряд технологически развитых государств, например Китай и США, активно используют возможности нейротехнологий, однако в отсутствие норм международного права, носящих характер «hard law» или актов «soft law», соблюдение и гарантирование защиты «нейроправ» человека оказались под угрозой. Использование современных технологий в данном контексте неизбежно приводит к необходимости проведения исследования в этическом и правовом аспектах, поскольку «нейроправа» затрагивают «субъективность лица», т.е. его ментальную составляющую, на которую может быть оказано влияние. Предполагается, что особая роль в определении международно-правового режима «нейроправ» принадлежит Организации Объединенных Наций и Организации Объединенных Наций по вопросам образования, науки и культуры (ЮНЕСКО). Важный шаг на пути к решению существующих проблем в «нейропространстве» был предпринят ЮНЕСКО в апреле 2024 г., когда был подготовлен Рабочий документ по подготовке проекта Рекомендации по этике нейротехнологий (Working document towards a draft text of a recommendation on the ethics of neurotechnology).
38
Hidalgo, Cerezo Alberto. "Neuroderechos y Derecho de la persona: estado de la cuestión y reflexiones sobre la propuesta chilena." Actualidad de Derecho Sanitario, no. 316 (September 1, 2023): 805–28. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13892785.
Full textAbstract:
<strong>SPANISH VERSION. RESUMEN.</strong> <strong>Neuroderechos y Derecho de la Persona: Reflexiones sobre la Propuesta Chilena</strong> Los neuroderechos son una nueva rama legal que busca proteger aspectos esenciales de la persona ante los avances neurocientíficos, particularmente aquellos relacionados con la <strong>capacidad de leer, manipular o modificar la actividad cerebral mediante neurotecnologías.</strong> Estas tecnologías, aunque ofrecen promesas terapéuticas como mejorar la calidad de vida de personas con discapacidad, también plantean serias amenazas a la privacidad mental, la identidad personal y el libre albedrío.<strong> Dado que el cerebro es el núcleo donde residen las ideas, los recuerdos, y la esencia del ser humano, los neuroderechos surgen como un marco jurídico esencial para garantizar la protección de estos aspectos fundamentales</strong> frente a posibles usos indebidos de neurotecnologías. La NeuroRights Foundation ha propuesto cinco neuroderechos fundamentales: privacidad mental, identidad personal, libre albedrío, acceso equitativo y protección contra sesgos. Estos derechos buscan asegurar que la información generada por el cerebro no sea explotada ni manipulada sin consentimiento y que la autonomía cognitiva sea respetada. Nos encontramos ante un concepto nuevo y en fase todavía embrionaria, no puede afirmarse que no exista protección compatible con estos principios. Así, en el marco jurídico europeo, algunos de <strong>estos derechos pueden encontrar coberturas en la normativa vigente, como el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH) y la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea (CDFUE)</strong>. Asimismo, la <strong>protección de la privacidad mental y los neurodatos encuentra perfecto encaje con el derecho a la intimidad y la protección de datos</strong> bajo el Reglamento General de Protección de Datos (RGPD). Chile ha sido uno de los países más vanguardistas en esta materia. En 2021, con la promulgación de la Ley Nº 21.383, se modificó la Constitución para incluir la protección de la integridad física y psíquica frente a los avances científicos y tecnológicos, con especial atención a la actividad cerebral. Además, el Proyecto de Ley Nº 13828-19 detalla varias medidas concretas para proteger los neuroderechos. El <strong>Título I</strong> establece disposiciones generales que<strong> garantizan la protección de la integridad y privacidad mental.</strong> El <strong>Título II</strong> introduce <strong>normas específicas para regular el uso de neurotecnologías, exigiendo consentimiento informado y consciente para cualquier intervención cerebral, y prohibiendo la manipulación de la identidad personal o el libre albedrío</strong>. Por último, el <strong>Título III</strong> se enfoca en la regulación del desarrollo de las neurotecnologías, estableciendo controles éticos rigurosos para su aplicación en la investigación y la práctica. En este artículo, se reflexiona no solo sobre el tenor literal de los artículos de este anteproyecto y sus implicaciones, sino también sobre cuestiones esenciales de derecho, en clave de <strong>derechos fundamentales y derechos humanos, como prius irrenunciable para la protección de la dignidad de la persona.</strong> -- <strong>ENGLISH VERSION. ABSTRACT.</strong> <strong>Neuro-rights and Human Rights: Reflections on the Chilean Proposal.</strong> Neuro-rights are a new branch in the study of law, that seeks to protect essential aspects of the person in the face of neuroscientific advances, particularly those related to the ability to read, manipulate or modify brain activity through neurotechnologies. These technologies, while offering therapeutic promise such as improving the quality of life for people with disabilities, also pose serious threats to mental privacy, personal identity and free will. Given that the brain is the core where ideas, memories, and the essence of being human reside, neurorights emerge as an essential legal framework to ensure that these fundamental aspects are protected from abuse in the use of neurotechnologies. The NeuroRights Foundation has proposed five fundamental neuro-rights: mental privacy, personal identity, free will, equal access, and protection against bias. These rights seek to ensure that information generated by the brain is not exploited or manipulated without consent and that cognitive autonomy is respected. This is a new and still embryonic concept, it cannot be said that there is no protection compatible with these principles. Thus, <strong>in the European legal framework, some of these rights can be covered by existing legislation, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU)</strong>. Likewise, the protection of mental privacy and neurodata finds a perfect fit with the right to privacy and data protection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Chile has been one of the most avant-garde countries in this area. In 2021, with the enactment of Law No. 21.383, the Constitution was amended to include the protection of physical and psychological integrity in the face of scientific and technological advances, with special attention to brain activity. In addition, Bill No. 13828-19 details a number of concrete measures to protect neuro-rights. <strong>Title I establishes general provisions guaranteeing the protection of mental integrity and privacy. </strong>Title II introduces <strong>specific rules to regulate the use of neurotechnologies, requiring informed and informed consent for any brain intervention, and prohibiting the manipulation of personal identity or free will.</strong> Finally, Title III focuses on regulating the development of neurotechnologies, establishing rigorous ethical controls for their application in research and practice. In this article, we reflect not only on the literal reading of the articles of this draft bill and its implications, but also on <strong>essential questions of law, in terms of fundamental rights and human rights, as an inalienable prius for the protection of the dignity of the human being.</strong>
39
Borbón, Diego, and José M. Muñoz. "El neuroderecho a la libertad cognitiva: fundamentos y alcance de un derecho emergente." IUS ET SCIENTIA 1, no. 10 (2024): 103–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/iestscientia.2024.i01.05.
Full textAbstract:
Los neuroderechos constituyen una innovadora propuesta para crear nuevos derechos humanos que regulen el exacerbado avance de las neurotecnologías. No obstante, el contenido conceptual y la pertinencia legal de estos derechos son objeto de amplio debate actualmente. En este trabajo, tras ofrecer un panorama de las respuestas que los neuroderechos proporcionan al avance neurotecnológico, nos centraremos en el análisis conceptual de la libertad cognitiva, considerada como un prerrequisito para el resto de neuroderechos. El análisis se basará en las dimensiones negativa y positiva de este derecho. En el primer caso, la libertad cognitiva se relaciona estrechamente con la propuesta de un neuroderecho al libre albedrío. En el segundo caso, se relaciona con el acceso a las neurotecnologías de mejora cognitiva.
40
Reche Tello, Nuria. "Nuevos derechos frente a la neurotecnología: la experiencia Chilena." Revista de Derecho Político, no. 112 (November 19, 2021): 415–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/rdp.112.2021.32235.
Full textAbstract:
Chile, en el marco de un nuevo proceso constituyente, aborda en primicia la reforma del artículo 19 nº 1 de su Constitución para hacer frente a los usos indebidos de las neurotecnologías, una enmienda que se desarrolla a través de un proyecto de Ley en el que se reconocen los conocidos como «neuroderechos », en terminología acuñada en la Neuroright Initiative de la Universidad de Columbia, New York, y que dirige el neurobiólogo español Rafael Yuste. En este artículo se analiza el proceso legislativo y sus enmiendas, con la finalidad de profundizar en el debate acerca de la regulación de las neurotecnologías reivindicando la presencia necesaria del derecho constitucional.
41
Hidalgo, Cerezo Alberto. "Neuroderechos. Derecho a la salud, derechos fundamentales, y nuevos retos en torno a su regulación." Derecho y Salud, no. 1 Extra (September 7, 2023): 229–42. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13893031.
Full textAbstract:
Español. Resumen. El debate en torno a los neuroderechos está ganando cada vez mayor atención entre juristas, científicos y académicos, si bien aún no ha permeado en el discurso social. Su estado de desarrollo es todavía embrionario, y existen posturas contrapuestas en cuanto a su oportunidad de regularlos y cómo afrontar la configuración legal de un fenómeno cuyas consecuencias tan solo pueden aventurarse. Sin dudas, existen dos áreas bien establecidas donde cuya protección, sin duda, alcanza a los neuroderechos. De un lado, el derecho a la salud, con interesantes progresos en medicina experimental para enfermedades mentales, neurodegenerativas y en lesiones del sistema nervioso. Del otro, el derecho de la persona, más concretamente, en la esfera de sus derechos fundamentales, que garantizan la protección a la dignidad de la persona, el libre desarrollo de su personalidad, la integridad física y moral y la intimidad, entre otros. En este trabajo, efectuamos una mirada crítica al presente y al futuro de los neuroderechos, a la luz de las actuales propuestas y los últimos desarrollos doctrinales y académicos en torno a ellas.
42
Muñoz, José M., Javier Bernácer, and Francisco Güell. "A Conceptual Framework to Safeguard the Neuroright to Personal Autonomy." Neuroethics 16, no. 3 (2023). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09523-4.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn this article, we propose a philosophical exploration on the main problems involved in two neurorights that concern autonomous action, namely free will and cognitive liberty, and sketch a possible solution to these problems by resourcing to a holistic interpretation of human actions. First, we expose the main conceptual and practical issues arising from the neuroright to “free will,” which are far from minor: the term itself is denied by some trends participating in the neurorights debate, the related concept of ultimate control is also disputed, the understanding of free will depends on cultural context, and the exercise of being free to act in several domains may be covered by other regulations. Second, we analyze the historical origin of cognitive liberty, its current status, and its relation with free will. Third, we criticize the concept of decision in mainstream action theory and propose to conceive action as a unified process constituted by three explanatory, non-sequential dimensions: intention, decision, and action realization. Fourth, we discuss two possible cases involving neurotechnologies and suggest ways to interpret them according to a unified framework in which free will and cognitive liberty fall under a single neuroright to personal autonomy. Finally, we outline a recommendation to introduce freedom of thought and personal autonomy as complementary neurorights to protect both the internal and external dimensions of thought and action.
43
Ruiz, Sergio, Luca Valera, Paulina Ramos, and Ranganatha Sitaram. "Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and politics." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 379, no. 1915 (2024). http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0098.
Full textAbstract:
Neuroimaging technologies such as brain–computer interfaces and neurofeedback have evolved rapidly as new tools for cognitive neuroscience and as potential clinical interventions. However, along with these developments, concern has grown based on the fear of the potential misuse of neurotechnology. In October 2021, Chile became the first country to include neurorights in its Constitution. The present article is divided into two parts. In the first section, we describe the path followed by neurorights that led to its inclusion in the Chilean Constitution, and the neurotechnologies usually involved in neurorights discussions. In the second part, we discuss two potential problems of neurorights. We begin by pointing out some epistemological concerns regarding neurorights, mainly referring to the ambiguity of the concepts used in neurolegislations, the difficult relationship between neuroscience and politics and the weak reasons for urgency in legislating. We then describe the dangers of overprotective laws in medical research, based on the detrimental effect of recent legislation in Chile and the potential risk posed by neurorights to the benefits of neuroscience development. This article aims to engage with the scientific community interested in neurotechnology and neurorights in an interdisciplinary reflection of the potential consequences of neurorights. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation’.
44
Ienca, Marcello. "On Neurorights." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15 (September 24, 2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years, philosophical-legal studies on neuroscience (mainly in the fields of neuroethics and neurolaw) have given increasing prominence to a normative analysis of the ethical-legal challenges in the mind and brain sciences in terms of rights, freedoms, entitlements and associated obligations. This way of analyzing the ethical and legal implications of neuroscience has come to be known as “neurorights.” Neurorights can be defined as the ethical, legal, social, or natural principles of freedom or entitlement related to a person’s cerebral and mental domain; that is, the fundamental normative rules for the protection and preservation of the human brain and mind. Although reflections on neurorights have received ample coverage in the mainstream media and have rapidly become a mainstream topic in the public neuroethics discourse, the frequency of such reflections in the academic literature is still relatively scarce. While the prominence of the neurorights debate in public opinion is crucial to ensure public engagement and democratic participation in deliberative processes on this issue, its relatively sporadic presence in the academic literature poses a risk of semantic-normative ambiguity and conceptual confusion. This risk is exacerbated by the presence of multiple and not always reconcilable terminologies. Several meta-ethical, normative ethical, and legal-philosophical questions need to be solved in order to ensure that neurorights can be used as effective instruments of global neurotechnology governance and be adequately imported into international human rights law. To overcome the shortcomings above, this paper attempts to provide a comprehensive normative-ethical, historical and conceptual analysis of neurorights. In particular, it attempts to (i) reconstruct a history of neurorights and locate these rights in the broader history of idea, (ii) outline a systematic conceptual taxonomy of neurorights, (iii) summarize ongoing policy initiatives related to neurorights, (iv) proactively address some unresolved ethico-legal challenges, and (v) identify priority areas for further academic reflection and policy work in this domain.
45
Tomain, Joseph A. "Ninth Amendment Neurorights." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5216656.
Full text
46
Istace, Timo. "Establishing Neurorights: New Rights versus Derived Rights." Journal of Human Rights Practice, December 5, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huae042.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The way in which neurotechnology interferes with the human mind by enabling reverse inferences of mental states and alterations of mental processes, is a source of significant concern. Both human rights scholars and international and regional human rights institutions are actively examining which human rights safeguards are needed to address these concerns and protect the human mind. Central to this exploration is the question of how human rights law should formally establish these safeguards: through the introduction of neurorights as new stand-alone human rights, or by deriving neurorights form existing rights? This article seeks to contrast arguments in favour and against both strategies, to inform a substantiated choice for the preferable option. To this end, the article will first outline the origins of the neurorights debate. Subsequently, it will elaborate on the two identified approaches to establishing neurorights. Thereafter, both approaches will be assessed on their merits, focussing on the general criteria of ‘need’ and ‘feasibility’. Based on this evaluation, the article identifies the Derivation Approach as the preferable path forward. The need for new, stand-alone rights is insufficiently established, whereas deriving neurorights from existing rights provides clearer and more coherent safeguards, and encounters fewer political challenges.
47
-, Karunambigai S., and Varsha Shree A. I. -. "Neurorights Safeguarding Mental Autonomy in a Digital Era." International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research 6, no. 6 (2024). http://dx.doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.31409.
Full textAbstract:
It was widely held that no one, not even the devil, could discover a man's intentions because the human brain, which contains intentions and thoughts, is an impenetrable fortress. But thanks to the development of neurotechnology, it might now be able to read someone's mind and ideas. While a large portion of technology has been created for use in hospitals for the diagnosis or treatment of patients with neurological, psychiatric, and neurodevelopmental disorders, some products, like brain stimulators that promise to improve mental performance or brainwave monitoring devices that let users play video games with their minds, are starting to appear in stores. Massive amounts of intricate brain data gathered via neuroimaging techniques are a great fit for artificial intelligence algorithms to process. We discuss how AI helps in developing neuroscience and vice versa. We will further discuss neurorights, protection against mind hacking and brain data theft. New human rights that protect an individual's autonomy over their ideas and mental processes would be a broader definition of neurorights. And regulations and policies enacted by numerous nations and conventions, such as the EU and the Republic of Chile. Numerous neurologists, philosophers, jurists, and other specialists have expressed varying views regarding the rights and scope of protection over time due to the interdisciplinary nature of the neurorights debate. The five Neurorights that the Neurorights Foundation promotes are the right to mental privacy, personal identification, free choice, fair access to mental augmentation, and immunity from bias.
48
Rainey, Stephen. "Neurorights as Hohfeldian Privileges." Neuroethics 16, no. 1 (2023). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09515-4.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper argues that calls for neurorights propose an overcomplicated approach. It does this through analysis of ‘rights’ using the influential framework provided by Wesley Hohfeld, whose analytic jurisprudence is still well regarded in its clarificatory approach to discussions of rights. Having disentangled some unclarities in talk about rights, the paper proposes the idea of ‘novel human rights’ is not appropriate for what is deemed worth protecting in terms of mental integrity and cognitive liberty. That is best thought of in terms of Hohfeld’s account of ‘right’ as privilege. It goes on to argue that as privileges, legal protections are not well suited to these cases. As such, they cannot be ‘novel human rights’. Instead, protections for mental integrity and cognitive liberty are best accounted for in terms of familiar and established rational and discursive norms. Mental integrity is best thought of as evaluable in terms of familiar rational norms, and cognitive freedom is constrained by appraisals of sense-making. Concerns about how neurotechnologies might pose particular challenges to mental integrity and cognitive liberty are best protected through careful use of existing legislation on data protection, not novel rights, as it is via data that risks to integrity and liberty are manifested.
49
Ligthart, Sjors, Marcello Ienca, Gerben Meynen, et al. "Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, May 15, 2023, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0963180123000245.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty – often framed as “neurorights” in ethical, legal, and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including neurorights into their constitutional legal frameworks, and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of neurorights the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to provide conceptual, ethical, and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal, and policy discussions.
50
McCay, Allan. "Neurorights: the Chilean constitutional change." AI & SOCIETY, March 2, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01396-0.
Full text