Neuroethics最新文献

Invasive neural devices offer novel prospects for motor rehabilitation on different levels of agentive behavior. From a functional perspective, they interact with, support, or enable human intentional actions in such a way that movement capabilities are regained. However, when there is a technical malfunction resulting in an unintended movement, the complexity of the relationship between the end user and the device sometimes makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for the outcome - a circumstance that has been coined as "responsibility gap" in the literature. So far, recent accounts frame this issue around the theme of control but more work is needed to explore the complicated terrain of assigning responsibility for neural device-mediated actions from this control perspective. This paper aims at contributing to this tendency by offering more fine-grained distinctions of how that control capacity is facilitated by the machine and how it can be exercised by the end user. This results in a novel framework that depicts an in-depth exploration of the control aspect of responsibility in a way that incorporates the diversity of relationships between neurotechnologies, the various conditions they treat, and the individual end user's experience.

Gilbert, Viaña, and Ineichen call for further empirical work on the effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on personality, identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy and self (PIAAAS) (Gilbert et al. 2018a). In particular, they emphasize the need for more sophisticated instruments measuring potential changes in PIAAAS. The development of such instruments, they argue, will provide a stronger empirical foundation for theoretical neuroethics work on DBS. We agree with this proposal. However, we believe that theoretical neuroethics has an important role to play in advancing empirical neuroethics that is not emphasized in Gilbert et al.'s remarks on the relationship between empirical and theoretical neuroethics. The development of instruments for more fully assessing changes in PIAAAS will require significant clarification of its component concepts. This task of clarification is the purview of theoretical neuroethics. In this article, we sketch how theoretical neuroethics can clarify the concept of autonomy. We hope that this can both serve as a model for the conceptual clarification of other components of PIAAAS and contribute to the development of the empirical measures that Gilbert and colleagues propose.

A central question in the current neurolegal and neuroethical literature is how brain-reading technologies could contribute to criminal justice. Some of these technologies have already been deployed within different criminal justice systems in Europe, including Slovenia, Italy, England and Wales, and the Netherlands, typically to determine guilt, legal responsibility, or recidivism risk. In this regard, the question arises whether brain-reading could permissibly be used against the person's will. To provide adequate legal protection from such non-consensual brain-reading in the European legal context, ethicists have called for the recognition of a novel fundamental legal right to mental privacy. In this paper, we explore whether these ethical calls for recognising a novel legal right to mental privacy are necessary in the European context. We argue that a right to mental privacy could be derived from, or at least developed within in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and that introducing an additional fundamental right to protect against (forensic) brain-reading is not necessary. What is required, however, is a specification of the implications of existing rights for particular neurotechnologies and purposes.