Article Text
Abstract
The idea of a ‘right to mental integrity’, sometimes referred to as a ‘right against mental interference,’ is a relatively new concept in bioethics, making its way into debates about neurotechnological advances and the establishment of ‘neurorights.’ In this paper, we interrogate the idea of a right to mental integrity. First, we argue that some experts define the right to mental integrity so broadly that rights violations become ubiquitous, thereby trivialising some of the very harms the concept is meant to address. Second, rights-based framing results in an overemphasis on the normative importance of consent, implying that neurointerventions are permissible in cases where people consent to have their mental states influenced or read off, a confidence in consent that we argue is misguided. Third, the concept often collapses the ethics of brain inputs and brain outputs, potentially resulting in a loss of important conceptual nuance. Finally, we argue that the concept of a right to mental integrity is superfluous—what is wrong with most violations of mental integrity can be explained by existing concepts such as autonomy, manipulation, privacy, bodily rights, surveillance, harm and exploitation of vulnerabilities. We conclude that bioethicists and policy-makers ought to either make use of these concepts rather than arguing for the existence of a new right, or they need to avoid making rights violations ubiquitous by settling on a narrower and more rigorous definition of the right.
- Ethics
- Neuroimaging
- Philosophy
- Psychology
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Contributors Both authors (JBB and PU) contributed to conceptualising and writing. JBB is the guarantor of this work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A healthcare approach to mental integrity
- Non-voluntary BCI explantation: assessing possible neurorights violations in light of contrasting mental ontologies
- Right to mental integrity and neurotechnologies: implications of the extended mind thesis
- Mental integrity, autonomy, and fundamental interests
- Neuro rights and the right to mental integrity
- Human rights and bioethics
- Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘freedom of thought’ objection
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- Neurointerventions and informed consent
- Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination