Is Virtually Everything Possible? The Relevance of Ethics and Human Rights for Introducing Extended Reality in Forensic Psychiatry

Abstract

Extended Reality (XR) systems, such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), provide a digital simulation either of a complete environment, or of particular objects within the real world. Today, XR is used in a wide variety of settings, including gaming, design, engineering, and the military. In addition, XR has been introduced into psychology, cognitive sciences and biomedicine for both basic research as well as diagnosing or treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. In the context of XR, the simulated 'reality' can be controlled and people may safely learn to cope with their feelings and behavior. XR also enables to simulate environments that cannot easily be accessed or created otherwise. Therefore, Extended Reality systems are thought to be a promising tool in the resocialization of criminal offenders, more specifically for purposes of risk assessment and treatment of forensic patients. Employing XR in forensic settings raises ethical and legal intricacies which are not raised in case of most other healthcare applications. Whereas a variety of normative issues of XR have been discussed in the context of medicine and consumer usage, the debate on XR in forensic settings is, as yet, straggling. By discussing two general arguments in favor of employing XR in criminal justice, and two arguments calling for caution in this regard, the present paper aims to broaden the current ethical and legal debate on XR applications to their use in the resocialization of criminal offenders, mainly focusing on forensic patients.

VR-assisted aggression treatment in forensic psychiatry: a qualitative study in patients with severe mental disorders

“…Taking into account the persuasiveness of VR technology ( 55 ) and the intrinsically coercive nature of forensic settings ( 56 ), some studies suggest that ethical priorities must account for the specific vulnerabilities (e.g., autonomy, deception, informed consent, mental liberty, moral agency, dignity) of (forensic) psychiatric patients when using new therapeutic technologies with this population ( 56 – 58 ). For example, therapeutic misconception ( 9 , 59 ) refers to the fact that a participant may not fully differentiate between participation in clinical research and an ordinary treatment.…”

Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’

“…115 Perhaps, an explicit recognition of the right to mental selfdetermination 116 may well fit within the court's conception of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR. 117 Concluding Remarks Advances in neurotechnology and AI are not only challenging traditional boundaries of our brains and mental lives, but they also challenge our traditional ways of thinking about human rights. More specifically, as our analysis has shown, there is an agreement that mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty are discernible notions of morality that need to be considered in legal response to advances in neurotechnology.…”

Digital Mental Health and its Challenges: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Mental Health in a Crisis

“…Withal, scholars have called for additional research to determine the effectiveness of existing findings (McDaniel et al, 2020;McDonnell et al, 2021) Further, the application of (XR) Extended reality systems in mental healthcare, such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), shows that service users can safely understand and manage their emotions. However, outstanding questions regarding effectiveness are posed when applied in forensic settings (Ligthart et al, 2021). Digitalising mental disorders using artificial intelligence to leverage the impact and scaling up mental health care is seen as a way to reduce the global number of those affected by mental disorders.…”