Challenges of the inconsistent neurorights framework in Latin America

Abstract

The integration of neurotechnology into society has prompted urgent discussions on neurorights (new lists of human rights to regulate neurotechnology) and has led to varied legislative responses across the region that leads this debate: Latin America. Although some countries have responded by pursuing constitutional amendments, others have proposed varied legal reforms, adopted different principles or adopted non-binding soft-law approaches, such as recommendations and guidelines. This diversity of responses has resulted in a fragmented landscape of neurorights protections that poses challenges for regional coherence. This Comment briefly discusses the divergent strategies of Latin American countries for integrating neurorights into their respective legal frameworks, highlighting inconsistencies and proposing ways to navigate these complexities alongside informed scholarship.

Neurorights have emerged as ethical necessities in response to advanced neurotechnology, with varied propositions by leading scholars. Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno in 2017 defined four key neurorights: cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity¹, each designed to protect individuals from unethical uses of neurotechnology. Concurrently, the Neurorights Foundation led by Rafael Yuste emphasized the importance of creating novel neurorights to mental privacy, personal identity, free will, equitable access to cognitive augmentation, and bias protection (https://neurorightsfoundation.org/mission). These new rights aim to address ethical issues by setting regulatory and protective standards to govern the application of emerging neurotechnologies².