Journal article icon

Journal article

Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy

Abstract:
'Brainjacking’ refers to the exercise of unauthorized control of another’s electronic brain implant. Whilst the possibility of hacking a Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) has already been proven in both experimental and real-life settings, there is reason to believe that it will soon be possible to interfere with the software settings of the Implanted Pulse Generators (IPGs) that play a central role in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) systems. Whilst brainjacking raises ethical concerns pertaining to privacy and physical or psychological harm, we claim that the possibility of brainjacking DBS raises particularly profound concerns about individual autonomy, since the possibility of hacking such devices raises the prospect of third parties exerting influence over the neural circuits underpinning the subject’s cognitive, emotional and motivational states. However, although it seems natural to assume that brainjacking represents a profound threat to individual autonomy, we suggest that the implications of brainjacking for individual autonomy are complicated by the fact that technologies targeted by brainjacking often serve to enhance certain aspects of the user’s autonomy. The difficulty of ascertaining the implications of brainjacking DBS for individual autonomy is exacerbated by the varied understandings of autonomy in the neuroethical and philosophical literature. In this paper, we seek to bring some conceptual clarity to this area by mapping out some of the prominent views concerning the different dimension of autonomous agency, and the implications of brainjacking DBS for each dimension. Drawing on three hypothetical case studies, we show that there could plausibly be some circumstances in which brainjacking could potentially be carried out in ways that could serve to enhance certain dimensions of the target’s autonomy. Our analysis raises further questions about the power, scope, and necessity of obtaining prior consent in seeking to protect patient autonomy when directly interfering with their neural states, in particular in the context of self-regulating closed-loop stimulation devices.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Publisher copy:
10.1007/s10676-018-9466-4

Authors

More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
HUMS
Department:
Philosophy Faculty
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Humanities
Department:
Philosophy
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Humanities
Department:
Philosophy
Oxford college:
St Cross College
Role:
Author


More from this funder
Funding agency for:
Savulescu, J
Pugh, J
Grant:
104848/Z/14/Z
203195/Z/16/Z


Publisher:
Springer Verlag
Journal:
Ethics and Information Technology More from this journal
Volume:
20
Issue:
3
Pages:
219–232
Publication date:
2018-07-30
Acceptance date:
2018-07-03
DOI:
EISSN:
1572-8439
ISSN:
1388-1957


Keywords:
Pubs id:
pubs:865256
UUID:
uuid:f48b48ab-6e7f-4c53-83d1-11294fb5b4a2
Local pid:
pubs:865256
Deposit date:
2018-07-09
ARK identifier:

Terms of use


Views and Downloads

Views and downloads will return soon






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP