Abstract

The swift and rapid pace at which neurotechnology is evolving has brought with it both immense opportunities never before available and its corresponding massive ethical dilemmas with regard to mental privacy and cognitive liberty. It is through neurotechnology that brain processes now can be read, recorded, and even modified. Thus, the emerging new protections called collectively "neuro-rights" are coming to be aimed at protecting individuals from possible damage coming from such illicit use. In the main, this paper is here to show how neurotechnology affects reserve autonomy and mental integrity using a framework of rights that is spelled out by the legal mind of Wesley Hohfeld, who classifies rights into claim-right, privilege, power, and immunity. This paper highlights mental privacy, cognitive liberty, and mental integrity within the legal status of neuro-rights. For example, neuro-rights legislation in Chile, Brazil, and France has become part of each country's legal framework. However, this does not solve the problem of the lack of international comprehensive standards in this regard. Inconsistencies across jurisdictions make them gaps in enforcement, leaving the individual vulnerable to unconcerned access to the individual's neural data and intrusive neuro-technological interventions. The legal and ethical complications involved in enforcing neuro-rights call for coordination at the international level to ensure similar footing on protection. This paper advocates for common international standards that would address ethical, legal, and social concerns surrounding neurotechnology. By including neuro-rights in existing human rights frameworks and advocating diverse collaboration across governments, ethicists, and lawyers, a strong regulatory paradigm could be built; moreover, remedies relating to the violation of neuro-rights should be explicitly stated for ensuring access to justice and redress for individuals affected by such rights violations. With rapid advances in neurotechnologies, it is imperative to take the initiative in early prevention of any possible abuses and protection of cognitive liberties. This model also should be applicable across nations to protect neuro-rights in such a way that technology advancement can lead to collective success for mankind rather than infringing on basic rights of human worth.

Keywords