The right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnology: constructing scope and exploring permissible limitations

One way to ensure adequate legal protection against existing and emerging forms of mental interference is by specifying the human right to mental integrity. This paper considers three possible constructions of the scope of this right in human rights law. It argues that the Mental Control View and the Direct Harmful Interference View fall short of providing a persuasive definition of the right. Rather, it is proposed to construct the scope of the right along the lines of the Significant Mental Interference View. Meanwhile, the <i>directness</i> of a mental interference and the psychological <i>harm</i> it entails are plausibly relevant factors to the potential justification of rights infringements.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaf010
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnology: constructing scope and exploring permissible limitations

Sjors Ligthart
1 citations
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
1.43
article

The right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnology: constructing scope and exploring permissible limitations

Sjors Ligthart
article en
1 citations

Abstract

One way to ensure adequate legal protection against existing and emerging forms of mental interference is by specifying the human right to mental integrity. This paper considers three possible constructions of the scope of this right in human rights law. It argues that the Mental Control View and the Direct Harmful Interference View fall short of providing a persuasive definition of the right. Rather, it is proposed to construct the scope of the right along the lines of the Significant Mental Interference View. Meanwhile, the <i>directness</i> of a mental interference and the psychological <i>harm</i> it entails are plausibly relevant factors to the potential justification of rights infringements.

Journal of Law and the BiosciencesVol. 12(1)
Utrecht University (NL), Tilburg University (NL)
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.