Advertisement

Spectral Personas: Exploring the Constitution and Legal Standing of “Virtual Personhood”

  • Bronwyn ParryEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Biolegalities book series (BIOGA)

Abstract

Drawing together substantive examples from three case studies: bioinformation derived from personal health records; regenerative devices; and donated oocytes I here begin to build a theory of the emplacement and constitution of personality in a techne-mediated world; of how and where it might be located and defended in law. Personality here subsists in new, more virtual, registers. In exploring the parallels between these cases my intention is to explicate what happens when historical understandings of the generation and transmission of personality are disrupted and how concepts such as dominion; culpability and belonging could, or should, be sustained or nuanced in response as we enter a brave new world in which personalities have no clear genealogy or legal standing.

References

  1. Ayuso, M, Bravo, J, Holzmann, R 2018, Getting life expectancy estimates right for pension policy: period versus cohort approach, Discussion paper series IZA Institute of Labour Economics, available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp11512.pdf.
  2. Bennett, J 2009, Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  3. Bently, L 2010, ‘Identity and the law’, in G Walker & E Leedham-Green (eds), Identity: the Darwin College lecture series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, C & Eby, T 2010, ‘The current status of audiologic rehabilitation for profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss’, The Laryngoscope, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 552–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, D 2018, ‘Recognizing the rights of nature: lofty rhetoric or legal revolution?’ Natural Resources & Environment, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
  6. Capogrosso, M, Milekovic, T, Borton, D, Wagner, F, Moraud, E, Mignardot, J et al. 2016, ‘A brain–spine interface alleviating gait deficits after spinal cord injury in primates’, Nature, vol. 539, no. 7628, p. 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chader, G, Weiland, J, Humayun, M, Verhaagen, J, Hol, E, Huitenga, I et al. 2009, ‘Artificial vision: needs, functioning, and testing of a retinal electronic prosthesis’, Progress in Brain Research, vol. 175, pp. 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coates, A 2017, ‘Is this Chimpanzee a non-human person?’, The Independent, 13 September, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/is-this-chimpanzee-a-non-human-person-a7941876.html.
  9. Dougherty, D, Rezai, A, Carpenter, L, Howland, R, Bhati, M, O’Reardon, J et al. 2015, ‘A randomized sham-controlled trial of deep brain stimulation of the ventral capsule/ventral striatum for chronic treatment-resistant depression’, Biological Psychiatry, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebeling, M 2016, Healthcare and big data: digital specters and phantom objects. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.Google Scholar
  11. Fletcher, E & Greferath, U 2010, ‘Electronic restoration of vision: science fiction or reality?’, Clinical and Experimental Optometry, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giroux, M & De Lorenzi, M 2011, ‘Putting the child first: a necessary step in the recognition of the right to identity’, Canadian Journal of Family Law, vol. 27, pp. 53–94.Google Scholar
  13. Inkster, B, Stillwell, D, Kosinski, M & Jones, P 2016, ‘A decade into Facebook: where is psychiatry in the digital age?’, Lancet Psychiatry, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 1087–1090, available at  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30041-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maloney, M 2018, ‘Environmental law: changing the legal status of nature: recent developments and future possibilities’, LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, vol. 49, p. 78.Google Scholar
  15. Margil, M 2017, ‘India court declares “personhood” of glaciers and ecosystems’, Press Statement, 3 April, http://celdf.org/2017/04/pr-india-court-declares-personhood-glaciers-ecosystems/, 27 April 2017.
  16. Mayer-Schönberger, V & Cukier, K 2013, Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. John Murray, London. Google Scholar
  17. Meloni, R, Mallet, J & Faucon Biguet, N 2011, ‘Brain gene transfer and brain implants’, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–17,  https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ng, Kenney et al. 2015, ‘Personalized predictive modeling and risk factor identification using patient similarity’, AMIJoint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIJoint Summits on Translational Science, vol. 132, no. 6, p. 2.Google Scholar
  19. O’Donnell, E 2017, ‘At the intersection of the sacred and the legal: rights for nature in Uttarakhand, India’, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ovadia, D & Bottini, G 2015, ‘Neuroethical implications of deep brain stimulation in degenerative disorders’, Current opinion in neurology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 598–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parry, B 2018, ‘The social life of “scaffolds” examining human rights in regenerative medicine’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parry, B & Greenhough, B 2017, Bioinformation. Polity Press, London.Google Scholar
  23. Pham, U, Solbakk, A, Skogseid, I, Toft, M, Pripp, A, Konglund, A et al. 2015, ‘Personality changes after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease’, Parkinson’s Disease, pp. 1–8. Google Scholar
  24. Prainsack, B 2015, ‘Three H’s for health—the darker side of big data’, Bioethica Forum, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar
  25. Rak, J 2017, ‘Radical connections: genealogy, small lives, big data’, a/b: Auto/Biography Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 479–497.Google Scholar
  26. Salling, M & Martinez, D 2016, ‘Brain stimulation in addiction’, Neuropsychopharmacology, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 2798–2809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, B 1928, ‘Legal personality’, Yale Law Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 283–299, available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol37/iss3/1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Staker, A 2017, ‘Should chimpanzees have standing? The case for pursuing legal personhood for non-human animals’, Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stone, C 1972, ‘Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects’, Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, pp. 450–501.Google Scholar
  30. Teubner, G 2018, Digital personhood? The status of autonomous software agents in private law, available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3177096 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3177096.
  31. Tripodes, Z 2015, ‘Gelman v. Uruguay Loyola Los Angeles’, International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 37, pp. 1861–1885.Google Scholar
  32. Waldby, C 2019, The oocyte economy: the changing meaning of human eggs. Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  33. Weber, G, Mandl, K & Kohane, I 2014, ‘Finding the missing link for big biomedical data’, The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 331, no. 24, pp. 2479–2480.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kings College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations