This has allowed Mr Copeland to play video games,
fight in a ‘lightsabre’ duel and even shake hands
with former President Barack Obama.136
Neurotechnology can also lead to greater
understanding of how memories are stored. This
has led to neurotechnologies that are capable of
improving memory performance by up to 20%.137
For patients suffering conditions such as Alzheimer’s
disease, stroke or head injuries, this is a promising
treatment.
Neurotechnologies are
capable of improving
memory performance
by up to
While the medical capabilities of neurotechnologies
can benefit people with disability, people with
disability are also most at risk. Neurotechnology
may create a power imbalance between those
seeking treatment or improvement of life and those
that develop, deploy and maintain the products.
Such imbalances raise further questions around
true, informed and ongoing consent.
Negatives
Despite the potentially positive impacts of medical
neurotechnologies for people with disability, several
pertinent risks arise when engaging with the technology:
What processes are in place to ensure that
neurotechnology users, who often receive
implantable BCIs, are supported for the life of
the device?
Will medical devices be funded by the National
Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) or other
schemes?
Will there be an increased disparity between
those who can afford/utilise devices and those
who cannot?
How will updates be transmitted to the
implanted BCI?
What will happen to BCIs as they become
replaced by more advanced BCIs?
How can users be protected in the event of a
neurotech company’s dissolution?
The physical health risks of implantable BCIs are
well noted and physical harms are already being
realised. One example is Second Sight, which
provided visually impaired users with a form of
artificial vision to help them see again.138 With
over 350 patients globally, this neurotechnology
product initially assisted many people. However, in
2019–2020 Second Sight discontinued its product
and nearly went insolvent. This resulted in some
users literally having their implants ‘turned off’ as
their artificial vision ‘went dark’. While some report
that the implants still worked, at this stage there is
little indication that users can have the devices fixed
if it malfunctions.139
Difficulties may also arise when an implantable
device is removed. NeuroVista was a company
which made a device which signalled to users when
an epileptic fit was about to occur, allowing users to
take measures to avoid or minimise the impact.140
In 2013, NeuroVista ran into financial difficulties and
began removing the implantable devices. One user
spoke of her sense of deep trauma and grieving
after having the device forcibly removed (as the
device did not belong to her), claiming she would
have done anything to keep it – she even attempted
to re‑mortgage her house to buy the device to
evade removal.141 The device had allowed her to
live confidently and happily, but after its removal
she stated:
I have never again felt as safe and secure … nor
am I the happy, outgoing, confident woman I was
… I still get emotional thinking and talking about
my device … I’m missing and it’s missing.142
The removal, decommissioning or end of life of an
invasive BCI raises issues under article 25 CRPD to
the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard
of health rights – especially where removal results
in disability or physical or mental injury returning
or being experienced in a heightened manner
undesirable to the user.143 Further, it is probable
that first use cases fitted with BCIs will be monitored
to develop and train future models and associated
algorithms. This may enliven issues under
article 15.1 CRPD which requires a user’s consent to
medical or scientific experimentation.144
Can genuine informed consent truly be obtained?
20
Protecting Cognition: Background Paper on Human Rights and Neurotechnology