In research involving patients with implantable brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), there is a regulatory gap concerning post-trial responsibilities and duties of sponsors and investigators towards implanted patients. In this article, we analyse the case of patient R, who underwent non-voluntary explantation of an implanted BCI, causing a discontinuation in her sense of agency and self. To clarify the post-trial duties and responsibilities involved in this case, we first define the ontological status of the BCI using both externalist (EXT) and internalist (INT) (...) theories of cognition. We then give particular focus to the theories of extended and embedded cognition, hence considering the BCI either as a constitutive component of the patient’s mind or as a causal supporter of her brain-based cognitive capacities. We argue that patient R can legitimately be considered both as an embedded and extended cognitive agent. Then, we analyse whether the non-voluntary explantation violated patient R’s (neuro)rights to cognitive liberty, mental integrity, psychological continuity and mental privacy. We analyse whether and how different mental ontologies may imply morally relevant differences in interpreting these prima facie neurorights violations and the correlational duties of sponsors and investigators. We conclude that both mental ontologies support the identification of emerging neurorights of the patient and give rise to post-trial obligations of sponsors and investigators to provide for continuous technical maintenance of implanted BCIs that play a significant role in patients’ agency and sense of self. However, we suggest that externalist mental ontologies better capture patient R’s self-conception and support the identification of a more granular form of mental harm and associated neurorights violation, thus eliciting stricter post-trial obligations. (shrink)

In this article I present a characterization of the right to mental integrity (RMI), expanding and refining the definition proposed by Ienca and Andorno’s (Life Science Society Policy 13 5, 2017) and clarifying how the scope of this right should be shaped in cases of cognitive extension (EXT). In doing so, I will first critically survey the different formulations of the RMI presented in the literature. I will then argue that the RMI protects from i) nonconsensual interferences that ii) bypass (...) reasoning and iii) produce mental harm. Contrary to other definitions proposed in the literature, my formulation disentangles the RMI from the right to cognitive liberty (RCL) (Lavazza in Frontiers Neuroscience 12 82, 2018), the right to mental privacy (RMP) (Lavazza and Giorgi in Neuroethics 16 (1): 1-13, 2023), and the right to psychological continuity (RPC) (Zohny et al. in Neuroethics 16: 20, 2023), thus enabling a fine-grained assessment of their simultaneous or individual violation. Finally, I analyse how the extended mind thesis (EXT) reshapes the scope of the RMI, proposing a layered protection of extended mental integrity, which grants stronger protection to the organism-bound cognitive system and self in case of manipulative influences of the mind-extending device. To conclude, I present a variety of neurorights violations and mental harms inflicted to organism-bound and cognitively extended agents. (shrink)

The current human rights framework can shield people from many of the risks associated with neurotechnological applications. However, it has been argued that we need either to articulate new rights or reconceptualise existing ones in order to prevent some of these risks. In this paper, we would like to address the recent discussion about whether current reconceptualisations of the right to mental integrity identify an ethical dimension that is not covered by existing moral and/or legal rights. The main challenge of (...) these proposals is that they make mental integrity indistinguishable from autonomy. They define mental integrity in terms of the control we can have over our mental states, which seems to be part of the authenticity condition for autonomous action. Based on a fairly comprehensive notion of mental health (ie, a notion that is not limited to the mere absence of illness), we propose an alternative view according to which mental integrity can be characterised both as a positive right to (medical and non-medical) interventions that restore and sustain mental and neural function, and promote its development and a negative right protecting people from interventions that threaten or undermine these functions or their development. We will argue that this notion is dissociated from cognitive control and therefore can be adequately distinguished from autonomy. (shrink)

The freedom of thought (FoT) has recently gained attention in human rights scholarship, emerging as a key component in the human rights protection of the human mind. However, this newfound interest has exposed significant gaps in the protection offered by the FoT. While the underdevelopment of the FoT is mainly examined in relation to the mind’s vulnerability to emerging neurotechnologies, there are numerous other ways to interfere with the privacy, freedom, and integrity of the mind. Conversations, education, online marketing, and (...) abusive indoctrination programs can all interfere with individual’s minds. These different forms of mind interventions (MIs) appear to pose varying degrees of threat to the FoT, particularly to the right not to have one’s thoughts impermissibly altered. Despite this, the theoretical exploration of the impact of different MIs on this aspect of FoT remains largely unexplored. This article explores the core of the right not to have one’s thoughts impermissibly altered. First, the current shortcomings in the conceptualisation of FoT will be outlined. Second, the article defines mind interventions to delineate the scope of the analysis. Third, it introduces a normative framework to identify Undue Mind Interventions (UMIs). To this end, a general maxim will be presented: a MI qualifies as an UMI when the agent intentionally undermines a subject's mental autonomy by bypassing, distorting, or disarming the mental abilities that enable it. The core elements of this maxim will be detailed. Finally, the impact of this normative assessment on the meaning of FoT will be discussed. (shrink)

We ordinarily think of the mind as private, “inside,” and accessible only to the person whose mind it is, and that the integrity of the mind is threatened by “outside” intervention. The prospect that neurotechnologies could be developed that are able to “read” our brains and directly manipulate our thoughts and feelings is, therefore, alarming to many. Implicit behind this sense of alarm is the view that, unlike other types of manipulation and persuasion that depend for their success on rational (...) autonomy, direct interventions into the brain uniquely undermine this autonomy. According to the Extended Mind Thesis (EMT), there is no necessary reason why mental states and processes must be realized by internal neural states. External artifacts can constitute part of a coupled cognitive system if these artifacts play the same functional role as internal states and processes. Interventions into these artifacts could, therefore, be considered direct interventions into the mind. If we alarmed by the threat to mental integrity posed by neurotechnology, then it is likely that we will be aghast at the idea that the mind can extend beyond the brain. For intuitively, extending the mind beyond the brain makes the mind more vulnerable to invasion. This paper argues that this fear may be misplaced. Specifically, the paper argues: (i) the most relevant processes to mental integrity are conscious, personal-level processes, (ii) the types of processes that can be extended according to the most influential account of EMT are unconscious, non-occurrent, and subpersonal processes, therefore (iii) the threat posed to mental integrity by neurotechnology if EMT is adopted may be quite modest. (shrink)

As is usually the case with other topics addressed by neuroethics, a rigorous analysis of neurorights requires an interdisciplinary approach. In response to this need and in the context of the global expansion of regulatory initiatives on neurorights, we coordinated, under the auspices of the International Center for Neuroscience and Ethics (CINET), an introductory course on neurorights from a neuroscientific perspective. The course, aimed at sixty students from diverse backgrounds (neuroscience, psychology, and law, among others), consisted of a 10-hr training (...) that showed the current approaches and discussions on neurorights and outlined cutting-edge technologies to register, analyze, and manipulate human brain activity from a realistic stance. The course succeeded in discarding some concerns and uncovering others not frequently found in the neurorights discussions. The most pressing issues identified were protecting brain data privacy, combating bias in algorithms used in neurotechnology, and improving informed consent mechanisms for interventions with invasive neuroscientific techniques. (shrink)

Several authors have recently claimed that we each possess a right against interference with our minds. However, it remains unclear how this claim is to be justified. I offer a novel argument in defence of it. The argument is intuitive—appealing centrally to intuitions regarding cases—and abductive—taking the form of an inference to the best explanation; I offer a series of cases involving intuitively wrongful interventions, argue that five somewhat promising attempts to account for the wrongfulness of these interventions leave some (...) of this wrongfulness unexplained, and show that my proposed alternative explanation, which invokes a right against mental interference, can account for this residual wrongfulness. (shrink)