Is Virtually Everything Possible? The Relevance of Ethics and Human Rights for Introducing Extended Reality in Forensic Psychiatry

REFERENCES

• Abels, D. 2012. Prisoners of the international community. The legal position of persons detained at international criminal tribunals. The Hague: Asser Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alegre, S. 2017. Rethinking freedom of thought for the 21st century. European Human Rights Law Review (3):221–33.
   Google Scholar
• Andershed, H., 2010. Stability and change of psychopathic traits: What do we know?. In Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy, by R. T. Salekin, and D. R. Lynam. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andorno, R. 2018. The role of UNESCO in promoting universal human rights: From 1948 to 2005. In International biolaw and shared ethical principles. The universal declaration on bioethics and human rights, by C. Caporale and I. Pavone. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barak, A. 2015. Human dignity: The constitutional value and the constitutional right. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barfield, W., and M. J. Blitz. 2018. Research handbook on the law of virtual and augmented reality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boire, R. G. 2001. On cognitive liberty. Journal of Cognitive Liberties 2 (1):7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, J. C. 2014. Freedom of thought in the age of neuroscience. Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie 100 (1):1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, J. C. 2020a. The nascent right to psychological integrity and mental self-determination. In The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, by A. Von Arnauld, K. Von der Decken and M. Susi. Novelty, Rhetoric. Padstow: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, J. C. 2020b. Why means matter: Legally relevant differences between direct and indirect interventions into other minds. In Neurointerventions and the law: Regulating human mental capacity, by N. A. Vincent, T. Nadelhoffer and A. McCay. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, J. C., and R. Merkel. 2014. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):51–77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9172-y.
   Google Scholar
• Chittaro, L., and N. Zangrando. 2010. The persuasive power of virtual reality: Effects of simulated human distress on attitudes towards fire safety. In Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2010, by T. Ploug, P. Hasle, and H. Oinas-Kukkonen. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cipresso, P., I. A. C. Giglioli, M. A. Raya, and G. Riva. 2018. The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: A network and cluster analysis of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology 9:2086. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornet, L., and J.-L. Van Gelder. 2020. Virtual reality: A use case for criminal justice practice. Psychology, Crime & Law 26 (7):631–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1708357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruft, R., M. Liao, and M. Renzo. 2015. The philosophical foundations of human rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Demers-Payette, O., P. Lehoux, and G. Daudelin. 2016. Responsible research and innovation: A productive model for the future of medical innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3):188–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1256659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolven, T., and E. Fidel. 2017. This prison is using VR to teach inmates how to live on the outside. Vice News, 27 December.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, T. 2018. Neural and environmental modulation of motivation. What’s the moral difference?. In D. Birks and T. Douglas. Treatment for crime. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, T., P. Bonte, F. Focquaert, K. Devolder, and S. Sterckx. 2013. Coercion, incarceration, and chemical castration: An argument from autonomy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (3):393–405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9465-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrington, C. 2018. Psychosocial impacts of hybrid closed-loop systems in the management of diabetes: A review. Diabetic Medicine 35 (4):436–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fromberger, P., K. Jordan, and J. L. Müller. 2018. Virtual reality applications for diagnosis, risk assessment and therapy of child abusers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 36 (2):235–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganguli-Mitra, A., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2011. Vulnerability in healthcare and research ethics. In The SAGE Handbook of Health Care Ethics, by R. Chadwick, H. Ten Have and E. M. Meslin. Los Angeles, London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Garrigan, B., A. L. R. Adlam, and P. E. Langdon. 2016. The neural correlates of moral decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis of moral evaluations and response decision judgements. Brain and Cognition 108:88–97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.07.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D. 2017. The Rat-a-Gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning. Cognition 167:66–77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. D., and J. M. Paxton. 2009. Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (30):12506–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900152106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, R. D., S. D. Hart, and T. J. Harpur. 1991. Psychopathy and the DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 100 (3):391–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.3.391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, D. J, et al. 2018. Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European convention on human rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, I. S. 2013. Sexualized minds: Child sex offenders’ offense-supportive cognitions and interpretations (diss.). Rotterdam: Erasmus Uiversiteit Rotterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Ienca, M., and R. Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13 (1):5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. D, et al. 2020. The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Human Factors
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellmeyer, P. 2018. Neurophilosophical and ethical aspects of virtual reality therapy in neurology and psychiatry. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27 (4):610–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180118000129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kellmeyer, P., N. Biller-Andorno, and G. Meynen. 2019. Ethical tensions of virtual reality treatment in vulnerable patients. Nature Medicine 25 (8):1185–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0543-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein Tuente, S., S. Bogaerts, E. Bulten, M. Keulen-de Vos, M. Vos, H. Bokern, S. v IJzendoorn, C. N. W. Geraets, and W. Veling. 2020. Virtual reality aggression prevention therapy (VRAPT) versus waiting list control for forensic psychiatric inpatients: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine 9 (7):2258. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein Tuente, S., S. Bogaerts, S. van IJzendoorn, and W. Veling. 2018. Effect of virtual reality aggression prevention training for forensic psychiatric patients (VRAPT): Study protocol of a multi-center RCT. BMC Psychiatry 18 (1):251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1830-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langdon, R., and C. Mackenzie, eds. 2012. Emotions, imagination, and moral reasoning. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latoschik, M. E, D. Roth, D. Gall, J. Achenbach, T. Waltemate, and M. Botsch. 2017. The effect of avatar realism in immersive social virtual realities. VRST '17: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, vol. 39, pp. 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3139131.3139156.
   Google Scholar
• Lavazza, A. 2018. Freedom of thought and mental integrity: The moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Front Neurosci 12 (82):82. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00082.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lemley, M. A., and E. Volokh. 2018. Law, virtual reality, and augumented reality. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 166:1051–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S. 2020. Freedom of thought in Europe: Do advances in brain-reading technology call for revision? Journal of Law and the Bioscience.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ligthart, S, T. Kooijmans, T. Douglas, and G. Meynen. 2021. Closed-loop brain devices in offender rehabilitation: Autonomy, human rights, and accountability. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ligthart, S, T. Douglas, C. Bublitz, T. Kooijmans, and G. Meynen. 2020. Forensic brain-reading and mental privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and challenges. Neuroethics 30(4).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S., G. Meynen, T. Douglas. 2021. Persuasive technologies and the right to mental liberty: The “Smart Rehabilitation” of criminal offenders. In Cambridge Handbook of Life Science, Information Technology and Human Rights, by Ienca, M. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S., L. van Oploo, J. Meijers, G. Meynen, and T. Kooijmans. 2019a. Prison and the brain: Neuropsychological research in light of the European Convention on Human Rights. New Journal of European Criminal Law 10 (3):287–300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284419861816.
   Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S., T. Douglas, C. Bublitz, and G. Meynen. 2019b. The future of neuroethics and the relevance of the law. AJOB Neuroscience 10 (3):120–1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1632961.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2013. Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marloth, M., J. Chandler, and K. Vogeley. 2020. Psychiatric interventions in virtual reality: Why we need an ethical framework. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (4):574–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000328.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marshall, J. 2009. Personal freedom through human rights law? Autonomy, identity and integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Mattingly, C., and J. Throop. 2018. The anthropology of ethics and morality. Annual Review of Anthropology 47 (1):475–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050129.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy-Jones, S. 2019. The autonomous mind: The right to freedom of thought in the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2:19. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2019.00019.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meijer, S. 2017. Rehabilitation as a positive obligation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 25 (2):145–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-25022110.
   Google Scholar
• Meijers, J., J. M. Harte, G. Meynen, P. Cuijpers, and E. J. A. Scherder. 2018. Reduced self-control after 3 months of imprisonment: A pilot study. Frontiers in Psychology 9:69. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00069.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melnick, K. 2018. Inmates use VR to prepare for life on the outside. VRscout 2.
   Google Scholar
• Michalowski, S. 2020. Critical reflections on the need for a right to mental self-determination. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights: Recognition, by A. Von Arnauld, K. Von der Decken and M. Susi. Novelty, Rhetoric. Padstow: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murdoch, J. 2012. Protecting the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Velandia, O., G. Guyatt, T. Devji, Y. Zhang, S.-A. Li, P. E. Alexander, D. Henao, A.-M. Gomez, and Á. Ruiz-Morales. 2019. Patient values and preferences regarding continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and artificial pancreas in adults with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative data. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 21 (4):183–200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0346.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nee, C., J. ‐L. Gelder, M. Otte, Z. Vernham, and A. Meenaghan. 2019. Learning on the job: Studying expertise in residential burglars using virtual environments. Criminology 57 (3):481–511. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pugh, J. 2018. Coercion and the neurocorrective offer. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, by D. Birks and T. Douglas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renaud, P., D. Trottier, J.-L. Rouleau, M. Goyette, C. Saumur, T. Boukhalfi, and S. Bouchard. 2014. Using immersive virtual reality and anatomically correct computer-generated characters in the forensic assessment of deviant sexual preferences. Virtual Reality 18 (1):37–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-013-0235-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo, A., S. Thomas Koenig, and T. B. Talbot. 2019. Clinical results using virtual reality. Journal of Technology in Human Services 37 (1):51–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1604292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryberg, J. 2018. Neuroscientific treatment of criminals and penal theory. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, by D. Birks and T. Douglas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryberg, J. 2020. Neurointerventions, crime, and punishment: Ethical considerations. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salekin, R. T. 2008. Psychopathy and recidivism from mid-adolescence to young adulthood: Cumulating legal problems and limiting life opportunities. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 117 (2):386–95. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J., and I. Persson. 2012. Moral enhancement, freedom and the god machine. The Monist 95 (3):399–421. doi:https://doi.org/10.5840/monist201295321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seinfield, S. 2018. Offenders become the victim in virtual reality: Impact of changing perspective in domestic violence. Nature Scientific Reports 8:2692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sententia, W. 2004. Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013 (1):221–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.014.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skalko, J., and M. J. Cherry. 2016. Bioethics and moral agency: On autonomy and moral responsibility. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (5):435–43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhw022.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Slater, M., C. Gonzalez-Liencres, P. Haggard, C. Vinkers, R. Gregory-Clarke, S. Jelley, Z. Watson, G. Breen, R. Schwarz, W. Steptoe, et al. 2020. The ethics of realism in virtual and augmented reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.00001.
   Google Scholar
• Szmukler, G., and P. S. Appelbaum. 2008. Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care. Journal of Mental Health 17 (3):233–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230802052203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. M. 2005. Freedom of religion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ticknor, B. 2019. Virtual reality and correctional rehabilitation: A game changer. Criminal Justice and Behavior 46 (9):1319–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819842588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umbach, R., A. Raine, and N. L. Leonard. 2018. Cognitive decline as a result of incarceration and the effects of a CBT/MT intervention: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior 45 (1):31–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817736345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urheim, R., K. Rypdal, T. Palmstierna, and A. Mykletun. 2011. Patient autonomy versus risk management: A case study of change in a high security forensic psychiatric ward. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 10 (1):41–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.550983.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeulen, B., M. Roosmalen, et al. 2018. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, by P. van Dijk. Cambridge: Intersensia.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, D. 2012. The politics of precaution: Regulating health, safety, and environmental risks in Europe and the United States. Woodstock, NY: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wassom, B. 2015. Augmented reality law, privacy, and ethics: Law, society, and emerging AR technologies. Waltham: Syngress.
   Google Scholar