Neurorights: new human rights? (Spanish/ Portuguese)

Driven by the parallel advancement of artificial intelligence, neuroscience has been developing at a proportion and velocity that surprise even the scientists dedicated to its study. There is no doubt about the benefits of this advance for humanity, although it is also necessary to recognize its harm, which requires a broad, open, and in-depth debate on its potential to violate human dignity. The speed with which these advances have been taking place has, however, conspired against the realization of these debates, preventing reflections that match their implications, and, consequently, hindering the formulation of ethical-legal contours capable of safeguarding human dignity in the face of possible deviations or abuses. In this context, this research aims to contribute to the formulation of ethical-legal parameters for the application of the neuroscience/artificial intelligence interface, in order to protect the recently called neurohuman rights, whose core is the protection of dignity

In recent years, the progress and development of neurotechnology has not only had repercussions in the scientific and business world, but its consequences have been extrapolated to other dimensions, including the area of law. In the latter area, concern has been incipient and few discussions have taken place at the national and international level, with the purpose of regulating and limiting the effects that the use of neurotechnology could have on humans. Thus, this article will show how a good treatment of the matter has been carried out by the Organization of American States through the Inter-American Juridical Committee and its Declaration published in 2021. This instrument constitutes a significant advance in the matter, at the international and inter-American level, opening the door to the protection of the right to cognitive liberty, in the interest of safeguarding human rights in the face of the imminent advance of neurotechnology.

Physical and emotional exhaustion due to work has become an increasingly common situation within companies. Its researchers (e.g. FREUDENBERG,1970) have argued that burnout develops itself as a response to chronic stressors present in work organizations. The expression is used to indicate physical and extreme mental exhaustion, chronicity of a feeling of stress caused by the work environment. The WHO recognized it as an occupational disease, linked to work, in January 2022. Chronic stress is derived from a physiological reaction in response to harmful emotional circumstances caused by work problems. In this context, neuroscience presents itself as a strong research tool for mental disorders in the workplace, as well the neurolaw as a mechanism to reduce obstacles to the typification of the worker's mental illness.

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is a way of thinking and expressing. Marshall Rosenberg explains that it is a form of communication in which the messages exchanged between people go from automatic and repetitive responses to being conscious, scheduled by what is perceived, felt and necessary, as it is widely used in consensual conflict management. The steps of NVC are observation (instead of judgment), feeling (to differentiate feelings from thoughts), needs (understanding one's own needs and those of others) and request (knowing how to do). Neuroscience helps to think about the CNV itself, which is still used mechanically, reflected way. Neuroscience points out that humans have an automatic and rapid reasoning system, not mediated by consciousness, but that influences actions, and states that humans are aware that they are naturally violent, but that they can transcend this nature, to be better. CNV is a possibility to break this.

The paper addresses the pioneering Chilean regulation of the so-called neuro-rights, including a constitutional reform passed and a bill currently under discussion in Congress. The core question has been whether or not neuro-rights should be seen as autonomous and distinctive human rights. Some scholars consider human rights are suitable tools to deal with threads from technical progress. In contrast, others claim that legal concepts could be overwhelmed by scientific advances, justifying developing new ones. The Chilean constitution and the bill in progress swing between these two strategies. As the topic still has uncertain outcomes and consequences, the paper claims it is wiser and more efficient to answer those challenges using existing legal institutions and bringing them up to date rather than creating new ones. Hence, the best way of understanding neuro-rights is like a 21st-century response to threats of rights like privacy or moral autonomy.