Tom Buller

According to a standard view, the physical boundary of the person—the skin-and-skull boundary—matters morally because this boundary delineates between where the person begins and the world ends. On the basis of this view we make a distinction between invasive interventions that penetrate this boundary and non-invasive interventions that do not. The development of neuroprosthetics, however, raises questions about the significance of this boundary and the relationship between person and body. In particular it has been argued by appeal to the Extended Mind thesis that mind and person can extend beyond the body, and hence the skin-and-skull boundary is of questionable significance. In this paper I argue that the Extended Mind thesis is consistent with the ethical relevance of the skin-and-skull barrier. Although it can be argued that cognitive processes and aspect of mind can extend beyond the skin-and-skull boundary as EM claims, it does not follow that the person is also extended beyond this boundary. The moral sense of person is closely related to the notion of person as a subject of experiences and this, in turn, is related to the sensory and somatosensory aspects of the body. The development of neuroprosthetics provides us with reason to see that persons can be variously embodied, but this is consistent with the functional and ethical significance of the skin-and-skull boundary

In Rationality and the Genetic Challenge: Making People Better? Matti Häyry provides a clear and informed discussion and analysis of a number of competing answers to the above questions. Häyry describes three main perspectives on the morality of prenatal genetic diagnosis , the “restrictive,” “moderate,” and “permissive” views, and his analysis illuminates that these views can be distinguished in terms of their different “rationalities”—their respective understanding of what counts as a reasonable choice for parents to make in light of PGD

There has been a fair amount of recent discussion about the implications that advances in neuroscience will have on the law and, in particular, legal responsibility. This discussion has been varied and includes, for example, the potential impact of neuroimaging techniques to reveal whether a defendant or witness is telling the truth, and consideration of whether our growing knowledge of brain function will warrant a revision in the law to make it more psychologically relevant.Tom Buller, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alaska Anchorage. His main research interests are in bioethics and neuroethics

As Colin Allen has argued, discussions between science and ethics about the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals often stall on account of the fact that the properties that ethics presents as evidence of animal mentality and moral status, namely consciousness and sentience, are not observable “scientifically respectable” properties. In order to further discussion between science and ethics, it seems, therefore, that we need to identify properties that would satisfy both domains.In this article I examine the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals from the perspective of neuroethics. By adopting this perspective, we can see how advances in neuroimaging regarding research into the neurobiology of pain, “brain reading,” and the minimally conscious state may enable us to identify properties that help bridge the gap between science and ethics, and hence help further the debate about the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals.

Neuroscience cannot and should not be allowed to replace normative questions with scientific onesOver the past few years considerable attention has been paid to a variety of issues that are now placed collectively under the heading of “Neuroethics”. In both the academic and the popular press there have been discussions about the possibilities and problems offered by cognitive enhancement and neuroimaging as well as debate about the implications of these emerging “neurotechnologies” for morality and the law. This issue of the journal contains eight papers that discuss a broad range of important topics in neuroethics, from cognitive enhancement and the moral status of animals and cyborgs, to the challenges of neurological consults in end of life cases. As these papers demonstrate, advances in neuroscience raise a number of important ethical questions, but can neuroscience help provide any answers?FACT AND VALUEAccording to the received philosophical wisdom, there is a fundamental distinction between fact and value—between how things are and how they ought to be. On the basis of this distinction one cannot draw normative conclusions from descriptive premises because there is nothing in the premises that would warrant such conclusions: from the fact that happiness is desired it does not follow that it ought to be. This received wisdom applies to neuroethics in the following way: whereas neuroscience might be able to identify the neurophysical correlates for evaluative notions such as preferences and attitudes,1,2 lying,3 and the distinction between in control and out of control behaviour,4 neuroscience cannot, in and by itself, provide the basis for their evaluation. The reason for this is that, in the absence of factors external to these neurophysical states, one neurophysical state is no better or worse than another—internal neurophysical states are logically …

A brain-computer interface designed to restore motor function detects neural activity related to intended movement and thereby enables a person to control an external device, for example, a robotic limb, or even their own body. It would seem legitimate, therefore, to describe a BCI as a system that translates thought into action. This paper argues that present BCI-mediated behavior fails to meet the conditions of intentional physical action as proposed by causal and non-causal theories of action. First, according to the causal theory of action physical actions are bodily movements that are causally related to a person’s intentions. It can be argued, however, that the proximate cause of action in present BCI-mediated behavior is not the person’s intention, and that the behavior fails to meet the conditions of reliability, sensitivity and difference-making. Second, BCI-mediated behavior can be accommodated by a Volitionist account of action if we can equate imagining movement with trying to move. The argument presented is that the novelty, and limited functionality and sensory feedback of present BCIs challenges this equation.

In this paper I discuss the view that the appropriate concept of competence is a decision‐relative one: that a person may be competent to make one decision but not another. The argument that I present is that neither of the two competing theories supporting the decision‐relative approach, internalism and externalism, can provide a coherent explanation of why a person’s competence should be thought to be relative to a particular decision. On the one hand, internalism, which regards competence as exhaustively a matter of the person’s understanding, fails to identify the specific skills or content that would warrant linking a specific decision with competence, and thus cannot provide an account of decision‐relative that parallels task‐relative. On the other hand, externalism, which regards competence as a matter of the person’s understanding in relation to external elements such as risk, cannot adequately defend why a person’s competence to make a decision should ‘track’ the level of probable harm that results from the decision.

Treatment decisions for incompetent patients are frequently based on the patient's prior expressed wishes when competent. The merit of this approach is that it is consistent with a respect for patient self-determination and extends the rights of the competent patient to cover incompetence. However, this approach has been challenged on the grounds that the neurological deficit or dementia that has rendered the patient incompetent has also sufficiently impaired or destroyed the patient's psychological states so as to destroy the psychological characteristics that constitute personal identity. Hence the incompetent patient is not the same person as the prior competent person and therefore has no authority to make treatment decisions for the incompetent patient. ;In this work I attempt to resolve the objection to this approach to decision-making for incompetent patients stated above. I examine the use of advance directives as a means by which the competent person can make future treatment decisions, and discuss the different approaches to decision-making for incompetent patients described in recent legal cases. Furthermore, there is an extensive discussion of the concepts of person and personal identity. I examine the connection between the concept of person and the possession of rights, and the necessary conditions of personhood and personal identity. A number of rival accounts of personhood and personal identity are discussed, and I argue that we can present plausible descriptions of these concepts that will include the incompetent patient in all but the most severe cases of neurological deficit. This work investigates the distinctions between the identity and survival relations, and attempt to determine whether it is possible for you or I to survive the loss of personhood. We discuss the conditions of survival and whether you or I are essentially persons. I conclude that we can describe the incompetent patient in such terms that he or she can be regarded as a survivor of the competent person even though the incompetent patient may no longer be a person, and hence the moral authority of advance directive is upheld