Advertisement

Cognitive Liberty or the International Human Right to Freedom of Thought

  • Christoph BublitzEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

The aim of the chapter is to draw attention to a fundamental right that is neglected in the law but that is highly relevant for neuroethics: cognitive liberty or freedom of thought. Although an internationally accepted human right, it has not gained practical legal importance. However, any regulation of neurotechnologies has to be evaluated in its light. As the right is unfamiliar to policy makers and even to many lawyers and legal scholars, its historical development and the main arguments for its recognition are sketched. Furthermore, some suggestions for its interpretation, scope, and contours are forwarded and remaining open questions identified. According to international human rights law, the right is of absolute nature so that interferences cannot be justified for interests of the common good or paternalistic reasons. Whether this strict prohibition of intervening into other persons’ minds can and should be sustained even in light of putative pressing public interests and various neuroethical considerations is one of the novel questions neuroscience poses for the law.

Keywords

Deep Brain Stimulation Drug Policy Moral Enhancement Affected Person Criminal Thought 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blitz, M. J. (2010). Freedom of thought for the extended mind: Cognitive enhancement and the constitution. Wisconsin Law Review, 4, 1049–1117.Google Scholar
  2. Boire, R. G. (1999). On cognitive liberty I. Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 1, 7–13.Google Scholar
  3. Boire, R. G. (2000). On cognitive liberty II. Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 2(2), 7–20.Google Scholar
  4. Boire, R. G. (2001). On cognitive liberty III. Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 2(1), 7–22.Google Scholar
  5. Boire, R. G. (2005). Neurocops: The politics of prohibition and the future of enforcing social policy from inside the body. Journal of Law and Health, 19(2), 216–257.Google Scholar
  6. Bublitz, J. C. (2013). My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In E. Hildt (Ed.), Cognitive enhancement (pp. 233–264). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bublitz, J. C., & Merkel, R. (2014). Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law & Philosophy, 8(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bury, J. B. (1952). A history of freedom of thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Calkins, L. (2010). Detained and drugged: A brief overview of the use of pharmaceuticals for the interrogation of suspects, prisoners, patients and POWS in the US. Bioethics, 24(1), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delgado, J. (1969). Physical control of the mind. Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. Eide, A., & Swinehart, T. (1992). The universal declaration of human rights. A commentary. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2011). Report “War on drugs”. www.globalcommissionondrugs.org
  13. Greely, H. T. (2006). The social effects of advances in neuroscience: Legal problems, legal perspectives. In J. Illes (Ed.), Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice and policy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, D., O'Boyle, M., & Warbrick, C. (2009). Law of the European convention on human rights (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hobbes, T. (1996). In R. Tuck (ed.), Leviathan [1651]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Husak, D. (1992). Drugs and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1991). Metaphysik der Sitten (Metaphysics of Morals, 1791). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2009). Pleasures of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lifton, R. J. (1989). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism. A study of brainwashing in China. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lipsman, N., Woodside, D. B., Giacobbe, P., Hamani, C., Carter, J. C., Norwood, S. J., et al. (2013). Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa: A phase 1 pilot trial. The Lancet, 381(9875), 1361–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macklin, R. (1981). Man, mind, and morality. The ethics of behavioral control. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Marks, J. (1992). Search for the Manchurian candidate. CIA and mind control. New York: W.W.Norton.Google Scholar
  24. Marks, J. H. (2010). A neuroskeptic's guide to neuroethics and national security. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(2), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maslen, H., Douglas, T., Kadosh, R. C., Levy, N., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: extending the medical model. Journal of Law and Biosciences, 1(1), 68–93.Google Scholar
  26. Merkel, R. (2007). Intervening in the brain. Changing psyche and society. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Metzinger, T. (2009). The ego tunnel. The science of the mind and the myth of the self. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Mill, J. S., Bromwich, D., Elshtain, J. B., & Kateb, G. (2003). On liberty. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moreno, J. D. (2012). Mind wars. Brain science and the military in the twenty-first century. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR commentary (2nd ed.). Arlington: N.P. Engel.Google Scholar
  31. Nutt, D. J. (2012). Drugs – without the hot air. Minimising the harms of legal and illegal drugs. Cambridge, UK: UIT.Google Scholar
  32. Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W., & Blakemore, C. (2007). Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. The Lancet, 369(9566), 1047–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quiroga, R. Q. (2012). Concept cells: The building blocks of declarative memory functions. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 13(8), 587–597.Google Scholar
  34. Ruff, C. C., Ugazio, G., & Fehr, E. (2013). Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science, 342(6157), 482–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sargant, W. W. (1997). Battle for the mind. A physiology of conversion and brain-washing. Cambridge, MA: Malor Books.Google Scholar
  36. Schlaepfer, T. E., Cohen, M. X., Frick, C., Kosel, M., Brodesser, D., Axmacher, N., et al. (2007). Deep brain stimulation to reward circuitry alleviates anhedonia in refractory major depression. Neuropsychopharmacology, 33(2), 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sententia, W. (2004). Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2004, 221–228.Google Scholar
  38. Spinoza, B, de. (2007). In J. Israel (ed.), Theological-political treatise [1670]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Synofzik, M., Schlaepfer, T. E., & Fins, J. J. (2012). How happy is too happy? Euphoria, neuroethics, and deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens. AJOB Neuroscience, 3(1), 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, K. E. (2006). Brainwashing. The science of thought control. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tussman, J. (1977). Government and the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Valenstein, E. S. (1974). Brain control. A critical examination of brain stimulation and psychosurgery. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. van Dijk, P., & van Hoof, G. J. H. (2006). Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights (4th ed.). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations