4. Applications
of existing and
upcoming concern
While there are a myriad of human rights challenges associated with neurotechnology, the background
paper has sought to discuss, at a high‑level, a small number of the applications of neurotechnology
which may raise complex human rights questions in Australia both now and into the future.
4.1 People with disability
Benefits
million
Australians have a
disability
Australians* experienced
a mental disorder in
their lifetime
*aged 16–85
Substance abuse &
neurological disorders
account for more than
of global
disease
It is estimated that approximately 4.4 million
Australians have a disability,128 with a further 42.9% of
Australians aged 16–85 having experienced a mental
disorder in their lifetime.129 Substance abuse and
neurological disorders account for more than 10% of
global disease – with the two most common mental
disorders being anxiety and depression.130 However
medical neurotechnology offers greater possibility
to treat and prevent many of these conditions.
There are numerous positive examples of
neurotechnologies being used to improve the lives
of people with disability. For example, medical
neurotechnology has been used to restore the vision
of a user who had been completely unable to see
for over 16 years, allowing them to discern shapes
and letters again.131 Similarly, cochlear implants
have also been used to restore functional hearing to
an estimated 1 million people worldwide.132
People with paralysis are experiencing quality of
life improvements thanks to neurotechnology. The
technology has been developed to allow devices to
decode speech from brain activity, allowing people
to communicate with the external world.133
One research participant and recipient of a
neurotechnological product, Mr Copeland,
highlights the potential of the technology.
Mr Copeland was left a paraplegic after a car
accident. He has since become the first person to
control a robotic arm and recover his sensations
of touch though implantation in the cortex
of the brain.134 Mr Copeland described the
neuroprosethetic device as:
Very intuitive to control, ... I don’t have to strain,
it really is just as easy as thinking move and
grasp; in that way, it is kind of an extension
of myself, but I also see it as a tool that I’m
controlling that is separate from myself.135
Australian Human Rights Commission
19