A Critical Perspective on NeuroRights: Comments Regarding Ethics and Law

Rodríguez, Diego Alejandro Borbón; Borbón, Luisa

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.703121

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This author affirms that there has not been a real academic debate, nor has it been explained why the current rights are insufficient. Borbón and Borbón (2021) have presented arguments in that same direction affirming that the current human rights already protect freedom, consent, equality, integrity, privacy, and others. In this sense, they propose that it would be much more necessary to propose legal and conventional regulations that are much clearer, precise, and extensive (Borbón and Borbón, 2021).…”

Section: Between Neurorights and Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Borbón and Borbón (2021) have presented arguments in that same direction affirming that the current human rights already protect freedom, consent, equality, integrity, privacy, and others. In this sense, they propose that it would be much more necessary to propose legal and conventional regulations that are much clearer, precise, and extensive (Borbón and Borbón, 2021). Likewise, Ienca (2021) asserts that the relatively sporadic presence of neurorights in the academic literature poses a risk of semantic-normative ambiguity and conceptual confusion; López and Madrid (2021) argue that the legal consequences would be disastrous if neurorights are normatively manifested in a frivolous or imprecise way; and Fins (2022) states that the current Chilean neurorights reforms are vague and premature.…”

Section: Between Neurorights and Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law

Soto

Rodríguez²

2022

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On September , , the people of Chile voted to deny the constitutional referendum that sought to replace the Constitution. The denial of the referendum did not a ect the reform of neurorights, since it was incorporated into article of the old Constitution, which remains e ective as of October . At the moment, the Chilean Government is preparing a new constitutional convention whose results will again be voted on by the Chilean people.

show abstract

Section: Between Neurorights and Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Between Neurorights and Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law

Soto

Rodríguez²

2022

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, only Yuste et al (2021) goes so far as to define this neuroright, in addition to the neuroright to decision-making free of algorithmic biases (Cornejo Plaza, 2021a). These are two of the most controversial neurorights (Muñoz, 2019;Borbón & Borbón, 2021).…”

Section: What Are Neurorights?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chilean neurorights legislation and its relevance for mental health: Criticisms and outlook

Cornejo-Plaza

2023

Salud Ment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Diego and Luisa Borbón-Rodríguez, in their critique of neurorights (Borbón and Borbón, 2021 ), including the right to cognitive enhancement and its equitable access (Borbón Rodríguez et al, 2020 ), point out that the boundaries between enhancement and transhumanism can become quite blurred, moving from a therapeutic medicine to a “medicine of desire” (Mainetti, 2008 ). This could even become a kind of contradiction in terms of free will, since the choice to be “improved” or enhanced would not really be an option for people.…”

Section: The Problem Of Equitable Access To (Recreational) Neurotechn...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cognitive augmentation or neuroenhancement is one of the emerging human rights that has sparked a debate (Borbón and Borbón, 2021 ; Bublitz, 2022 ; Fins, 2022 ; Rainey, 2023 ) for moral and legal reasons, beyond a certain consensus on the need to regulate cognitive enhancement neurotechnologies (Ienca, 2021a ; RHC, 2022 ). From a therapeutic point of view, there are no moral issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights' pioneering legislation in Chile: a perspective

Cornejo-Plaza

Saracini

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The so-called neurorights are emerging human rights, or rather reconfigurations of already existing human rights, seeking to address the impact of the possible misuse of neurotechnologies, which have the potential to become more invasive and harmful in the future if not regulated. The aim of specifying neurorights is to protect the dignity and autonomy of the individual in the face of neurotechnological advances. Recently, Chile proposed a Constitutional reform inspired by the neurorights, opening a debate. One of the proposed neurorights is fair and equitable access to cognitive enhancement, which will be the specific object of this perspective article. Starting from the legal proposal, we analyse and discuss some perspectives on cognitive enhancement, or “neuroenhancement”, which could be considered as part of enhancement neurotechnologies, pointing out that pharmacological enhancers, or “smart drugs”, might be considered as part of these enhancers. We present a classification of the different types of cognitive enhancements as it has been proposed in the literature, into which pharmacological cognitive enhancement can be included, concluding that there is currently no agreement amongst scholars and lawyers about the ethical consideration of pharmacological cognitive enhancement. We therefore argue that it is necessary for the legislator to explicitly address the issue in the proposed regulations, in order to take a clear position on the topic, as it has been done in the United Kingdom, where the pharmacological neuroenhancers have been explicitly excluded from the regulation. If pharmacological neuroenhancers are going to be considered neurotechnologies, then new law proposals should seek harmonization with the already existing legislation regulating pharmacological health and consumer rights (both globally, taking into account international drug laws, and locally, according to each country's internal regulations) and of course, with the whole system of fundamental rights. Finally, we briefly discuss the ethical problem of equitable access to this new type of neurotechnologies (as part of the neurorights) and leave the debate open for new insights from the scientific community on the possible consequences of including (or not) pharmacological neuroenhancers as neurotechnologies for cognitive enhancement in the framework of the ethical and legal debate.

show abstract

A Critical Perspective on NeuroRights: Comments Regarding Ethics and Law

Cited by 19 publications

References 28 publications

Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law

Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law

Chilean neurorights legislation and its relevance for mental health: Criticisms and outlook

On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights' pioneering legislation in Chile: a perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About