Abstract
When discussing possible brain manipulations and interventions, the protection of mental integrity is especially relevant at the anthropological level since human identity may be affected. In this sense, I argue that mental integrity is constituted as a right because it is the condition of possibility for other human dimensions, such as freedom, autonomy, and agency. In this regard, we must protect mental integrity in order to safeguard human intimacy. Nevertheless, since the human being is a situated being, with a strong relationship with his/her environment, protecting the mental integrity of the individuals also means protecting their environment. In this regard, a more complex and integrative view of the human being is necessary. One of the dimensions that current brain manipulations and interventions may affect, at the anthropological level, is the issue of human vulnerability, which maintains a strong link with our integrity. Indeed, the mitigation (or the respect) of our vulnerability is a prerequisite for maintaining our integrity (which is linked to personal identity). Vulnerability creates, thus, ethical concerns for two main reasons: 1. We must protect our vulnerability because we need to preserve our integrity and, therefore, our dignity; and 2. We have to protect human vulnerability because we are the main cause of it: our technological power is probably the main source of our current vulnerability. In this sense, the concept of vulnerability lies at the intersection between power and duty and, for this reason, may constitute a powerful (bio)ethical indicator in order to assess current neurotechnologies and their impact in our lives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As Craig (2016, 111) writes, with reference to the importance of autonomy in the context of current neurotechnologies, “in bioethics, autonomy has traditionally been seen as a fundamental principle that precludes paternalistic interference. Further, in past years, discussion in the emerging neuroethics discourse has turned attention to core features of human agency and autonomy.”
- 2.
In order to understand this quotation, it would be useful to recall the famous definition by Rendtorff (2002, 237): “In bioethics and biolaw the idea of integrity as an untouchable core, the personal sphere, which should not be subject to external intervention, is the most important. […] Integrity expresses bodily completeness in a private sphere.”
- 3.
Indeed, in the next Section, I will show the relevance of the environment on human agency in the digital era.
- 4.
Of course, in order to fully understand the subject, it would be necessary to have “a relatively clear idea of what is meant by the expressions ‘personal identity’ and ‘change of personal identity’” (Lucivero and Tamburrini 2008).
- 5.
In this sense, we may state that “Mental Integrity is the individual’s mastery of his mental states and his brain data so that, without his consent, no one can read, spread, or alter such states and data in order to condition the individual in any way” (Ienca & Andorno 2017).
- 6.
Ienca & Andorno (2017) explain what this harm consists of: “For an action X, to qualify as a threat to mental integrity, it has to: (i) involve the direct access to and manipulation of neural signaling (ii) be unauthorized —i.e., must occur in absence of the informed consent of the signal generator, (iii) result in physical and/or psychological harm.”
- 7.
Indeed, the CIOMS (2016, 57) Declaration—which concerns the ethical aspects of human research—recalls the relevance of context for the human condition: “In some cases, persons are vulnerable because they are relatively (or absolutely) incapable of protecting their own interests […] In other cases, persons can also be vulnerable because some feature of the circumstances (temporary or permanent) in which they live makes it less likely that others will be vigilant about, or sensitive to, their interests.”
- 8.
This possibility of being harmed has been expressed by CIOMS (2016, 57) in the following way: “Vulnerability involves judgments about both the probability and degree of physical, psychological, or social harm.”
References
Andorno R (2016) Is vulnerability the foundation of human rights? In: Masferrer A, García-Sánchez E (eds) Human dignity of the vulnerable in the age of rights. Springer, London, pp 257–272
Bazin D (2004) A reading of the conception of man in Hans Jonas’ works: between nature and responsibility. An environmental ethics approach. Éthique et économique/Ethics Econ 2(2):1–17
Bublitz JC, Merke R (2014) Crimes against minds: on mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Crim Law Philos 8:51–77
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2016) International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Fourth Edition. WHO Press, Geneva
Craig JN (2016) Incarceration, direct brain intervention, and the right to mental integrity—A reply to Thomas Douglas. Neuroethics 9:107–118
European Group of Ethics (EGE) (2005) Ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body. Opinion presented to the Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_05_97
Floridi L (2014) The 4th Revolution. How the infosphere is resha** human reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Floridi L (2015) The Onlife Manifesto. Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Open, Oxford
Floridi L (2021) Trump, parler, and regulating the infosphere as our commons. Philos Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00446-7
Fuselli S (2020) Mental integrity protection in the neuro-era. Legal challenges and philosophical background. BioLaw J 1:413–429
Güell F, Murillo JI (2015) Una aproximación al problema mente-cerebro desde Xavier Zubiri a la luz del pensamiento de Leonardo Polo. Studia Poliana 17:101–128
Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity, Cambridge
Kampowski S (2014) A Greater Freedom. Biotechnology, love, and human destiny. In dialogue with Hans Jonas and Jürgen Habermas. The Lutterworth Press, Cambridge
Kemp P, Dahl Rendtorff J (2008) The Barcelona declaration towards an integrated approach to basic ethical principles. Synth Philos 46(2):239–251
Ienca M, Andorno R (2017) Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy 13:5
Joldersma CW (2009) How can science help us care for nature? Hermeneutics, fragility, and responsibility for the earth. Educ Theory 59(4):465–483
Jonas H (1985) The imperative of responsibility. In search of an ethics for the technological age. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Jonas H (2001) The phenomenon of life: toward a philosophical biology. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Lavazza A (2018) Freedom of thought and mental integrity: the moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Front Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00082
Lévinas E (1984) De l’existence à l’existant. Vrin, Paris
Levy N (2011) Hard luck how luck undermines free will and moral responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lucivero F, Tamburrini G (2008) Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces. AI Soc 22(3):449–460
Marcos A (2016) Vulnerability as a part of human nature. In: Masferrer A, García-Sánchez E (eds) Human dignity of the vulnerable in the age of rights. Springer, Cham, pp 29–44
Marcos A (2019) La creatividad humana: una indagación antropológica. Rev Port Filos 75(4):2137–2154
Patrão Neves M (2007) The new vulnerabilities raised by biomedical research. In: Häyry M, Takala T, Herissone-Kelly P (eds) Ethics in biomedical research: International perspectives. Rodopi, New York, pp 181–192
Patrão Neves M (2009) Article 8: respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity. In: UNESCO. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights: background, principles and application. UNESCO Publishing, Paris
Petrosino S (2010) La scena umana: grazie a Derrida e Lévinas. Jaca Book, Milano
Rendtorff JD (2002) Basic ethical principles in european bioethics and biolaw: autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability—Towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw. Med Health Care Philos 5:235–244
ten Have H (2016). Vulnerability. Challenging bioethics. Routledge, London & New York
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO (2005) Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO (2013) The principle of respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity. Report of the international bioethics committee of UNESCO (IBC). Paris
Valera L (2013) Ecologia umana. Le sfide etiche del rapporto uomo/ambiente. Aracne, Roma
Valera L (2018) Home, Ecological Self and Self-Realization: Understanding asymmetrical relationships through Arne Næss’s ecosophy. J Agr Environ Ethic 31:661–675
Valera L (2018) Against Unattainable Models. Perfection, technology and society. Sociología y tecnociencia 8(1):1–16
Valera L (2020) New technologies. Rethinking ethics and the environment. In: Valera L, Castilla JC (eds) Global changes. Ethics, politics and the environment in the contemporary technological world. Springer, Cham, pp 29–43
Valera L, Castilla JC (2020) Global changes. Ethics, politics and the environment in the contemporary technological world. Springer, Cham
Wheeler S (2012) Climate change, Hans Jonas and indirect investors. J Hum Rights Environ 3(1):92–115
Yuste R et al (2017) Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 551(7679):159–163
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the “Beca Santander Profesores 2021”, the programme “Erasmus Plus 2019-KA107 International Credit Mobility” (PUC-Università degli Studi di Torino), and the project ANID/Fondecyt Regular n. 1210081.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Valera, L. (2022). Mental Integrity, Vulnerability, and Brain Manipulations: A Bioethical Perspective. In: López-Silva, P., Valera, L. (eds) Protecting the Mind. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94032-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94032-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94031-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94032-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)