RESUMO
This paper discusses a landmark ruling by the Chilean Supreme Court of August 9, 2023 dealing with the right to mental privacy, originated with an action for constitutional protection filed on behalf of Guido Girardi Lavin against Emotiv Inc., a North American company based in San Francisco, California that is commercializing the device "Insight." This wireless device functions as a headset with sensors that collect information about the brain's electrical activity (i.e., neurodata). The discussion revolves around whether neurodata can be considered personal data and whether they could be classified into a special category. The application of the present legislation on data (the most obsolete, such as the Chilean law, and the most recent EU law) does not seem adequate to protect neurodata. The use of neurodata raises ethical and legal concerns that are not fully addressed by current regulations on personal data protection. Despite not being necessarily considered personal data, neurodata represent the most intimate aspects of human personality and should be protected in light of potential new risks. The unique characteristics of neurodata, including their interpretive nature and potential for revealing thoughts and intentions, pose challenges for regulation. Current data protection laws do not differentiate between different types of data based on their informational content, which is relevant for protecting individual rights. The development of new technologies involving neurodata requires particular attention and careful consideration to prevent possible harm to human dignity. The regulation of neurodata must account for their specific characteristics and the potential risks they pose to privacy, confidentiality, and individual rights. The answer lies in the reconfiguration of human rights known as "neurorights" that goes beyond the protection of personal data.
RESUMO
Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) offer the potential to facilitate neurorehabilitation in stroke patients by decoding user intentions from the central nervous system, thereby enabling control over external devices. Despite their promise, the diverse range of intervention parameters and technical challenges in clinical settings have hindered the accumulation of substantial evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of BCIs in stroke rehabilitation. This article introduces a practical guide designed to navigate through these challenges in conducting BCI interventions for stroke rehabilitation. Applicable regardless of infrastructure and study design limitations, this guide acts as a comprehensive reference for executing BCI-based stroke interventions. Furthermore, it encapsulates insights gleaned from administering hundreds of BCI rehabilitation sessions to stroke patients.â¢Presents a comprehensive methodology for implementing BCI-based upper extremity therapy in stroke patients.â¢Provides detailed guidance on the number of sessions, trials, as well as the necessary hardware and software for effective intervention.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Actualización del extenso y variado concepto de la neuroética. Se discute la responsabilidad profesional, tanto de médicos como de otros profesionales vinculados con las diversas ramas de la neurociencia, relacionados con la salud y la enfermedad de los pacientes afectados de un proceso que comprometa al sistema nervioso central o periférico. Se analiza el espectro amplio de la neurociencia y su vinculación con la neurotecnología. Se enumeran los diversos tipos de iatrogenia. Descripción de cuatro pacientes en estado vegetativo y muerte cerebral. Se plantea la actitud y responsabilidad del profesional médico analizando y discutiendo el enfoque terapéutico correspondiente. Se recuerdan las desviaciones de la neuroética durante el período nazi, antes y durante la Segunda Guerra mundial. Se mencionan situaciones médicas especiales que plantean aspectos neuroéticos.
Update of broad concept of neuroethics. The liability of different members related to neuroscience connected to health and disease of the central and peripheral nervous system are discussed. The importance of neuroethics with neurotechnology. Different types of iatrogenic disturbances are mentioned. Four patients with vegetative state and cerebral death, and the medical responsibility in the therapeutic approach are analyzed. Deviations of neuroethics during the nazi period and the second world war are described. Some especial medical situations with neuroethics aspects are commented.