https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2450-0109
![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Calls to adopt neurorights in the international human rights framework in order to address the challenges raised by neurotechnology are growing louder. By contrast, various scholars point out that the introduction of such neurorights would be premature considering that the adequacy of existing human rights in addressing these challenges should first be thoroughly investigated. In this analysis, it will be examined whether the existing human rights framework can offer adequate protection against the threats neurotechnology poses to the human mind. First, ongoing developments in neurotechnology will be explored. Second, critical considerations will be formulated regarding the introduction of neurorights. Third, a detailed analysis will be conducted on how existing human rights law might counter the ethical concerns neurotechnology gives rise to. By way of conclusion, it will be argued that, through an evolutive interpretation of its provisions, this framework might already be able to aptly address these concerns.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno, ‘Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology’ (2017) 13 Life Sci. Soc. Policy 1; Rafaël Yuste, Jared Genser and Stephanie Herrmann, ‘It’s Time for Neuro-Rights; New Human Rights for the Age of Neurotechnology’ (2021) 18 Horizon 155.
2 Elisa M Carbonell, ‘The Regulation of Neuro-Rights’ (2022) 2 ERDAL 149; Jan-Christoph Bublitz, ‘Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance’ (2022) 15 Neuroethics.
3 OECD, ‘Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology’ (2019), OECD/LEGAL/0457.
4 Chad E Bouton and others, ‘Restoring Cortical Control of Functional Movement in a Human with Quadriplegia’ (2016) 533 Nature 247; Bolu Ajiboye and others, ‘Restoration of Reaching and Grasping Movements Through Brain-Controlled Muscle Stimulation in a Person with Tetraplegia: A Proof-Of-Concept Demonstration’ (2017) 389 Lancet 1821; H Lorach and others. ‘Walking Naturally After Spinal Cord Injury Using a Brain–Spine Interface’ (2023) 618 Nature 126.
5 Matthew S Fifer and others, ‘Intracortical Somatosensory Stimulation to Elicit Fingertip Sensations in an Individual with Spinal Cord Injury’ (2022) 98 Neurology 679.
6 Olga Iljina and others, ‘Neurolinguistic and Machine-Learning Perspectives on Direct Speech BCIs for Restoration of Naturalistic Communication’ (2017) 4 BCI 186; Hassan Akbari and others, ‘Towards Reconstructing Intelligible Speech from the Human Auditory Cortex’ (2019) 9 Sci. Rep. 874.
7 Peter Mitchell and others, ‘Assessment of Safety of a Fully Implanted Endovascular Brain-Computer Interface for Severe Paralysis in 4 Patients The Stentrode With Thought-Controlled Digital Switch (SWITCH) Study’ (2023) 80 JAMA Neurol. 270.
8 Amit Chopra, Bryan T Klassen and Matt Stead, ‘Current Clinical Applications of Deep-Brain Stimulation for Essential Tremor’ (2013) 9 Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 1859.
9 Darrin J Lee and others, ‘Current and Future Directions of Deep Brain Stimulation for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders’ (2019) 131 J. Neurosurg. 333.
10 Gavin JG Elias and others, ‘Probabilistic Mapping of Deep Brain Stimulation: Insights from 15 Years of Therapy’ (2021) 89 Ann. Neurol. 426.
11 Eran Klein and others, ‘Brain-Computer Interface-Based Control of Closed-Loop Brain Stimulation: Attitudes and Ethical Considerations’ (2016) 3 BCI 140.
12 UNESCO, ‘The Risks and Challenges of Neurotechnologies for Human Rights’ (2023).
13 Anna Wexler and Peter B Reiner ‘Oversight of Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnologies’ (2019) 363 Science 234.
14 NeuroTech Analytics. ‘Global Neurotech Industry Investment Digest 2021’ (2022).
15 Jan-Christoph Bublitz, ‘The Nascent Right to Psychological Integrity and Mental Self-Determination’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights (CUP 2020) 387.
16 Jerry Tang and others, ‘Semantic Reconstruction of Continuous Language from Non-Invasive Brain Recordings’ (2023) 26 Nature 858.
17 Shinji Nishimoto and others, ‘Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies’ (2011) 21 Curr. Biol. 1641; Alexander G Huth and others, ‘Decoding the Semantic Content of Natural Movies from Human Brain Activity’ (2016) 10 Front. Syst. Neurosc.
18 Chun S Soon and others, ‘Predicting Free Choices for Abstract Intentions’ (2013) 110 PNAS 6217; Stefan Bode, Carsten Bogler and John-Dylan Haynes, ‘Similar Neural Mechanisms for Perceptual Guesses and Free Decisions’ (2013) 65 NeuroImage 456.
19 Darren Schneiber and others, ‘Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans’ (2013) 8 PLoS One e52970.
20 Heini Saarimäki and others, ‘Discrete Neural Signatures of Basic Emotions’ (2016) 26 Cereb. Cortex 2563.
21 Tang and others (n16).
22 Important to note in this regard is that the decoder needs to be trained in an individual, and subsequently can only be applied to that one individual. The device as such is thus not universally applicable.
23 Jared Genser, Stephanie Herrmann and Rafaël Yuste, ‘International Human Rights Protection Gaps in the Age of Neurotechnology’ (2022) Neurorights Foundation paper.
24 Sarah Richmond, ‘Brain Imaging and the Transparency Scenario’ in Sara Richmond, Geraint Rees and Sarah Edwards (eds), I Know What You’re Thinking. Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy (OUP 2012).
25 Lee and others (n 9).
26 Roy Dings and Leon de Bruin, ‘Situating the Self: Understanding the Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation’ (2016) 15 Phenom. Cogn. Sci. 151.
27 Laurie Pycroft, John Stein and Tipu Aziz, ‘Deep Brain Stimulation: An Overview of History, Methods and Future Developments’ (2018) 2 Brain and Neurosci. Adv. 1.
28 Wexler and Reiner (n 13).
29 Marcello Ienca and Gianclaudio Malgieri, ‘Mental Data Protection and the GDPR’ (2022) 9 J. Law Biosci. 1.
30 OECD (n 3).
31 DH-BIO, ‘Strategic Action Plan on Human Rights and Technologies in Biomedicine 2020–2025’ (2020); DH-BIO, ‘Common Human Rights Challenges Raised by Different Applications of Neurotechnologies in the biomedical field’ (2021), Report by M. Ienca; IBC, ‘Report on ethical issues of neurotechnology’ (2021) SHS/BIO/IBC-28/2021/3 Rev.,11; IBC. ‘The Risks and Challenges of Neurotechnologies for Human Rights’ (2023).
32 UN HRC, ‘Resolution 51/03 on Neurotechnology and Human Rights’ (2022), A/HRC/RES/51/3.
33 Ley Núm. 21.383, Modifica La Carta Fundamental, Para Establecer El Desarrollo Cientifico Y Technológico Al Servicio De Las Personas, 25 October 2021.
34 E.g., Spain, Italy, Brazil; IBC (n 31).
35 Carbonell (n 2).
36 Francis X Shen, ‘Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law’ (2013) 36 Harv. J. Law Publ. P. 653.
37 Arleen Salles, ‘Some Reflections on the Neurorights Debate’ in UNESCO, The Risks and Challenges of Neurotechnologies for Human Rights (2023).
38 Diego Borbón and Luisa Borbón, ‘Critical Perspective on NeuroRights: Comments Regarding Ethics and Law’ (2021) 15 Front. Hum. Neurosci.; Joseph J. Fins, ‘The Unintended Consequences of Chile’s Neurorights Constitutional Reform: Moving beyond Negative Rights to Capabilities’ (2022) 15 Neuroethics 26; Carbonell (n 2).
39 Stephen Morse, ‘Avoiding Irrational NeuroLaw Exuberance: A Plea for Neuromodesty’ (2011) 62 Mercer Law Rev. 837.
40 Fins (n 38).
41 Silvia Inglese and Lavazza Andrea, ‘What Should We Do With People Who Cannot or Do Not Want to Be Protected From Neurotechnological Threats?’ (2021) 15 Front. Hum. Neurosci. 703092.
42 Ienca and Andorno (n 1).
43 Sjors Ligthart and others, ‘Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’’ (2023) Arxiv.
44 Pablo Lopez-Silva, ‘The Concept of Mind in the Neuroprotection Debate’ in Pablo Lopez-Silva and Luca Valera (eds), Protecting the Mind. Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights. (Springer 2022).
45 Ligthart and others (n 43).
46 Jan-Christoph Bublitz and Reinhard Merkel, ‘Crimes Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and Human Right to Mental Self-Determination’ (2014) 8 Crim. Law and Philos. 51; Thomas Douglas, ‘From Bodily Rights to Personal Rights’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights (CUP 2020).
47 Daniele Ruggiu, ‘Implementing a Responsible, Research and Innovation Framework for Human Enhancement According to Human Rights: The Right to Bodily Integrity and the Rise of “Enhanced Societies”’ (2018) 10 Law Innov. Technol. 82.
48 Articles 1 Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), 10 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and 1 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). It is also recognised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as the very essence of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), see Pretty v. the UK App no 2346/02 (ECtHR 29 April 2002), para 65.
49 COE, ‘Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine’ (1997); See preamble and Article 1.
50 Adeno Addis, ‘Dignity, Integrity, and the Concept of a Person’ (2019) 13 ICL Journal 323.
51 Christopher McCrudden, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’ (2008) 19 Eur. J. Int. Law 655.
52 Roberto Andorno, ‘Human Dignity and Human Rights’ in Henk AMJ ten Have and Bert Gordijn (eds), Handbook of Global Bioethics (Springer 2014).
53 Sjors Ligthart and others, ‘Rethinking the Right to Freedom of Thought: A multidisciplinary Analysis’ (2022) 22 Hum. Rights Law Rev. ngac028.
54 Roberto Andorno, ‘Human Dignity and Human Rights’ in Henk AMJ ten Have and Michèle Jean (eds), The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Background, principles and application (Unesco Publishing 2009).
55 Ben Vermeulen, ‘Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (article 9)’ in Pieter van Dijk and others (eds), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fifth edition) (Intersentia 2018); Mari Stenlund and Pamela Slotte, ‘Forum Internum Revisited: Considering the Absolute Core of Freedom of Belief and Opinion in Terms of Negative Liberty: Authenticity and Capability’ (2018) 18 Hum. Rights Rev. 425; UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, ‘Interim report’ (2021), A/76/380.
56 UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, ‘Interim report’ (n 5).
57 Loukis G Loucaides, ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought as Protected by the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2012) 1 Cyprus Hum. Rights Law Rev. 79.
58 Karl J Partch, ‘Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms’ in Louis Henkin (ed), The International Bill of Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Columbia University Press 1981); Martin Scheinin, ‘Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion’ (2000) 54 Stud. Theol. 5; Bahia Tahzib Freedom of Religion or Belief. Ensuring Effective International Legal Protection (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005); Patrick O’Callaghan and Bethany Shiner ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought in the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2021) 8 Eur J Comp. Law Gov. 112; Susie Alegre, ‘Regulating Around Freedom in the “Forum Internum”’ (2021) 21 ERA Forum 593.
59 Lucas Swaine, ‘Freedom of Thought as a Basic Liberty’ (2018) 46 Pol. Theory 405, 411.
60 CCPR, ‘General Comment 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ (1993), HRI/GEN/1/Rev; UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, ‘Interim report’ (2021), A/76/380.
61 Jim Murdoch, Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion. A Guide to the Implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Handbooks no. 9 (Council of Europe 2007); Bernadette Rainey, Elisabeth Wicks, and Clare Ovey (eds), The European Convention on Human Rights (OUP, 7th edn 2017); Sjors Ligthart, Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice. An Analysis of European Human Rights Law (CUP 2022).
62 Campbell & Cosans v. The UK App nos 7511/76 and 7743/76 (ECtHR 25 February 1982), para 36.
63 Ibid, para 36; Bayatyan v. Armenia App no 23459/03 (ECtHR 7 July 2011), para 110; Eweida a.o. v. the UK App nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10 (ECtHR 15 January 2013), para 81.
64 With the exception of very rare judgements such as Salonen v. Finland App no 27868/95 (ECtHR 2 July 1997).
65 This case law revolves around the notion of ‘belief’. However, Bublitz argues that ‘thought’ and ‘belief’ should be interpreted similarly, and that ‘thoughts’ should be include ‘beliefs on all matters’. Jan-Christoph Bublitz, ‘Freedom of Thought as an International Human Right: Elements of a Theory of a Living Right’ in Jonathan Blitz and Jan-Christoph Bublitz (eds), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, vol. 1 (Palgrave Macmillan 2021).
66 Ligthart and others (n 53).
67 Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR Commentary (N.P. Engel Publisher 2005).
68 Susie Alegre, ‘Rethinking Freedom of Thought for the 21st Century’ (2017) 3 EHRLR 221.
69 At the same time this absolute character is a reason for the underdevelopment of the case law on the freedom of thought.
70 Ligthart and others (n 43).
71 Susie Alegre (n 67); Simon McCarthy-Jones, ‘The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought in the Twenty-First Century’ (2019) 2 Front Art Intel; Ligthart and others (n 53); Nora Hertz, ‘Neurorights – Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought’ (2022) 16 Neuroethics 5.
72 CCPR, ‘General comment No. 34 to article 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (2011), DOC CCPR/C/GC/34; Gillberg v. Sweden App no 41723/06 (ECtHR 3 April 2012), para. 86.
73 Markt Intern Verlag GMBH & Klaus Beerman v. Germany App no 10572/83 (ECtHR 20 november 1989), para. 26.
74 Ligthart and others (n 43).
75 Nowak (n 67) 442.
76 UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, ‘Report’ (2018), A/73/348.
77 COE, Preparatory work on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (1956) DH (56)14.
78 Ligthart and others (n 53).
79 Ibid.
80 Jill Marshall, Personal Freedom through Human Rights Law? Autonomy, Identity and Integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 3.
81 COE, ‘Guide on Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence’ (Last updated 31 August 2021) accessed 16 May 2023.
82 Ligthart and others (n 53).
83 Nicole A. Moreham, ‘The Right to Respect for Private Life in The European Convention on Human Rights: a Re-examination’ (2008) 1 EHRLR 42.
84 Pretty v. the UK (n48).
85 Ruggiu (n 47).
86 Stephen Rainey, ‘Neurorights as Hohfeldian Privileges’ (2023) 16 Neuroethics Article 9, 2.
87 IBC (n 31).
88 Ruggiu (n 47).
89 Jesse Herring and Jonathan Walls, ‘The Nature and Significance of the Right to Bodily Integrity’ (2017) 76 CLJ 566.
90 X. v. Finland App no 2346/02 (ECtHR 27 July 2002), para. 212; Adrien M Viens, ‘The Right to Bodily Integrity. Cutting Away Rhetoric in Favour of Substance’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights (CUP 2020).
91 Storck v. Germany App no 61603/00 (ECtHR 16 June 2005), paras. 168–169.
92 EComHR 10 December 1984, App.no 10435/83.
93 Nevertheless, as Ligthart (n 61) points out, the increasing application of neuroimaging techniques in non-medical contexts by non-medically trained persons – e.g., in gaming BCI’s – might render this label of medical treatment inaccurate.
94 See e.g., article 8(2) ECHR.
95 Caruana v. Malta App no 41079/16 (ECtHR 15 May 2018), para. 41; W. v. The Netherlands App no 20689/08 (ECtHR 20 January 2009), para. 8.
96 Ligthart (n 61) 96.
97 Nevertheless, the right to respect for private life might be applicable since the collection and potential processing of personal data will occur.
98 Jared N Craig, ‘Incarceration, Direct Brain Interventions, and the Right to Mental Integrity – a Reply to Thomas Douglas’ (2016) 9 Neuroethics 107.
99 Storck v. Germany (n 91), paras. 168–169.
100 Douglas (n 46).
101 Ligthart (n 61).
102 Douglas (n 46) 382.
103 Jesper Ryberg, Neurointerventions, Crime, and Punishment: Ethical Considerations (OUP 2019).
104 X. v. Finland (n91), para. 220; Storck v. Germany (n 91), paras.164–169.
105 Bublitz and Merkel (n 46).
106 Costello-Roberts v. UK App no 13134/87 (ECtHR 25 March 1993), para. 36; EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, ‘Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. European Commission’ (2006); Karin De Vries, ‘Right to Respect for Private and Family Life’ in Pieter van Dijk and others (eds), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Intersentia, 5th edn 2018).
107 Craig (n 98) 109.
108 Andrea Lavazza, ‘Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis’ 2018 12 Front Neurosci 4.
109 X and Y v. The Netherlands App no 8978/80 (ECtHR 26 March 1985), para 22; Tysiac v. Poland App no 5410/03 (ECtHR 20 March 2007).
110 EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights (n 106).
111 DH-BIO, ‘Strategic Action Plan on Human Rights and Technologies in Biomedicine 2020–2025’ (2020) 13.
112 Laurence Lwoff, ‘New Technologies, New Challenges for Human Rights? The Work of the Council of Europe’ (2020) 27 Eur. J. Health Law 335.
113 X. v. Tanzania App no 22/2014 (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 31 August 2014), para. 8.7.
114 Ligthart (n 61).
115 In its case law, the ECtHR uses the right to mental integrity interchangeably with the right to moral or psychological integrity. As such, this right is recognised as ‘an essential aspect of the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 ECHR’; X. and Y. v. The Netherlands (n 109), para. 22.
116 Jan-Christoph Bublitz (n 15).
117 Thomas Douglas and Lisa Forsberg, ‘Three Rationales for a Legal Right to Mental Integrity’ in Sjors Ligthart and others (eds), Neurolaw. Advances in Neuroscience, Justice & Security (Palgrave Macmillan 2021) 185.
118 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland App no (ECtHR 27 June 2017), para. 137.
119 McCarthy-Jones (n 71); It is more fitting here to speak of ‘information about our mental states’, as this analysis investigates whether the current right to privacy applies to mental information of all sorts.
120 Within the CFR, this right is an autonomous human right protected by Article 8 CFR. The status and autonomous character of a right to data protection vis-à-vis the more general right to privacy within an EU context are the subject of extensive scholarly debate. A discussion of this debate falls outside the scope of this article.
121 Dara Hallinan and others, ‘Neurodata and Neuroprivacy: Data Protection Outdated?’ (2014) 12 Surveill. Soc. 55.
122 Marcello Ienca and others, ‘Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data’ (2022) 15 Neuroethics 20.
123 Ligthart (n 61) 76.
124 S. & Marper v. UK App nos 30562/04, 30566/04 (ECtHR 4 December 2008), para. 72; Aycaguer v. France, App no 8806/12 (ECtHR 22 June 2017), para. 33; Article 2(a) COE Convention 108+; Article 4(1) EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); Recital 26 GDPR; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, ‘The protection and use of health-related data’ (2019), A/74/277.
125 Ligthart (n 61).
126 UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy (n 124).
127 Ligthart (n 61).
128 Sjors Ligthart and others, ‘Forensic Brain-Reading and Mental Privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and Challenges’ (2021) 14 Neuroethics 191.
129 The scope of Article 8 CFR seems largely determined by secondary law in the form of the GDPR. For the GDPR protection mechanism to apply, it is merely required that the data that are processed enable the identification of the data subject.
130 Mikhail Votinov and others, ‘Brain Structure Changes Associated with Sexual Orientation’ (2021) 11 Nature 5078; Alberto Frigerio, Lucia Ballerini and Maria V. Hernandez, ‘Structural, Functional, and Metabolic Brain Differences as a Function of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation: A Systematic Review of the Human Neuroimaging Literature’ (2021) 50 Arch Sex. Behav. 3329.
131 UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, ‘Principles Underpinning Privacy and the Protection of Personal Data’ (2022), A/77/196.
132 Ligthart (n 61) 106.
133 Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic App no 28859/11 (ECtHR 15 November 2016), para. 178.
134 Dave AG van Toor, Het schuldige geheugen? Een onderzoek naar het gebruik van hersenonderzoek als opsporingsmethode in het licht van eisen van instrumentaliteit en rechtsbescherming (Wolters Kluwer 2017).
135 Patrick O’Callaghan and others, ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of the UN Special Rapporteur’s Report on Freedom of Thought’ (2023) IJHR.
136 Hertz (n 71).
137 Tyrer v UK App no 5856/72 (ECtHR 25 April 1978), para. 31; Roger Judge v. Canada, CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (HRC 13 August 2003), para. 10.3.
138 Ligthart and others (n 53).
139 Ibid (n 43).
140 Susie Alegre (n 58).
141 Nita Farahany, The Battle for Your Brain. Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology (Macmillan Publishers 2023).
142 Ligthart and others (n 53).
143 Given that such interferences would be considered to reach the threshold required for an interference with the freedom of thought.
144 McCarthy-Jones (n 71).
145 Susie Alegre (n 58).
146 McCarthy-Jones (n 71).
147 Ligthart and others (n 53).
148 Sabine Michalowski, ‘Critical Reflections on the Need for a Right to Mental Self-Determination’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights (CUP 2020).
149 Roger Brownsword, ‘Regulating Brain Imaging: Questions of Privacy, Informed Consent, and Human Dignity’ in Sara Richmond, Geraint Rees and Sarah Edwards (eds), I Know What You’re Thinking. Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy (OUP 2012).
150 Ligthart and others (n 53).
151 Lavazza (n 108); Ligthart (n 61).
152 Douglas and Forsberg (n 117).
153 Ligthart and others (n 43).
154 Bublitz (n 15).
155 Ienca and Andorno (n 1).
156 Ibid.
157 Dings and de Bruin (n 26).
158 Ligthart and others (n 53).
159 DH-BIO (n 31).
160 Lwoff (n 112); Ligthart and others (n 53).
161 Hertz (n 71).
162 UN, ‘Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights’ (1997).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Timo Istace
Timo Istace is a PhD researcher at the Law Faculty of the University of Antwerp. His research focuses on human rights law, medical law, and bioethics. In particular, he examines the impact of neurotechnological developments on human rights law.