• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
[Neuroscience] EGE Report: Implants in theHuman Body
[This text version of the European Group on Ethics' report "EthicalAspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body" was converted (withoutfootnotes) from the html version in the Google cache athttp://www.google.com/search?q=cache:u5Zs3--4gUIJ:europa.eu.int/comm/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20en.pdf+&hl=en.The original PDF file is athttp://europa.eu.int/comm/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20en.pdf. The use of implanted devices (and other, related technologies) inhuman beings raises fundamental ethical and moral questions which are*finally* beginning to be openly discussed and taken seriously. Totheir credit, the authors of this EGE report have for the most partdone a very good job of covering and explaining the issues. They arenot afraid to use the term "human dignity" or to insist on informedconsent.The report's recommendations with regard to the use of informationand communication technology (ICT) implants for surveillance purposesare as follows:[...]6.4. ICT IMPLANTS FOR NON-MEDICAL PURPOSESThe wide range of potential non-medical applications of ICTimplants also demands informed consent, respect for privacy,etc. Some of these applications are analysed in the followingsections. The EGE makes the general point that non-medicalapplications of ICT implants are a potential threat to humandignity and democratic society. Therefore, such applicationsshould respect in all circumstances the principles of informedconsent and proportionality and, whenever aiming at surveillancepurposes, they should comply with the rules set out hereunder inSection 6.4.6.The EGE emphasizes that where adults give their informed consentto specific applications, the provided information should includeclear data on possible health disturbances in the short and/orlong term as well as problems of unwilling data processing.[...]
 
6.4.6. ICT Implants for Surveillance PurposesICT implants for surveillance in particular threaten humandignity. They could be used by state authorities, individuals andgroups to increase their power over others. The implants could beused to locate people (and also to retrieve other kinds of information about them). This might be justified for securityreasons (early release for prisoners) or for safety reasons(location of vulnerable children).However, the EGE insists that such surveillance applications of ICT implants may only be permitted if the legislator considersthat there is an urgent and justified necessity in a democraticsociety (Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention) and there areno less intrusive methods. Nevertheless the EGE does not favoursuch uses and considers that surveillance applications, under allcircumstances, must be specified in legislation. Surveillanceprocedures in individual cases should be approved and monitored byan independent court.The same general principles should apply to the use of ICTimplants for military purposes.[...]Rather than just being a future issue, much of this technology hasexisted for years. For example, a tooth implant device capable of sending auditory signals to a person that only he or she can hear hasexisted since at least the late 1950s. Jose Delgado tested histransdermal "stimoceiver" brain implants on human subjects back in the1970s. Modern RF-controlled, individually addressable microstimulatorchips can be built on a submillimeter scale. A Senate subcommitteechaired by Sam Ervin, Jr. issued a report similar to this EGE report,titled _Individual Rights and the Federal Role in BehaviorModification_, back in 1974.As the EGE report points out, there are clearly military applicationsfor these technologies. Compared with the open technologies, devicesdeveloped in largely unaccountable black-budget "special accessprograms" would be like a stealth bomber versus a Boeing 747 (back before stealth bombers even officially existed). Just as with thehuman radiation experiments, the US has a long history of conductingnonconsensual experimentation in the area of covert behavioralinfluencing. These human rights issues *also* need to be openlyaddressed.]
 
 --------OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN GROUP ON ETHICSIN SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIESTO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONN° 20Adopted on 16/03/2005Original in English******************************************************************ETHICAL ASPECTS OF ICT IMPLANTS IN THE HUMAN BODYReference: Opinion produced on the direct initiative of the EGERapporteurs: Professor Stefano Rodotà and Professor Rafael Capurro******************************************************************The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE),Having regard to the European Union Treaty and in particular Article 6of the common provisions concerning the respect for fundamentalrights;[...]1. INTRODUCTIONInformation and communication technologies (ICT) pervade ourlives. Thus far, this pervasive influence has mainly involved devicesthat we use for private purposes or at the work place such as personalcomputers, mobile phones, laptops and the like. Due to newdevelopments these devices are becoming more and more part of ourbodies, either because we wear them (wearable computing) or becausethey are implanted in our bodies.At first sight ICT implants are ethically unproblematic if we think for instance about cardiac pacemakers. However, although ICT implantsmay be used to repair deficient bodily capabilities they can also bemisused, particularly if these devices are accessible via digitalnetworks. One might even think of such devices as a threat to humandignity and particularly to the integrity of the human body (seeSection 5), while for others such implants might be seen primarily asa means for restoring damaged human capabilities and therefore as acontribution to the promotion of human dignity.The idea of letting ICT devices get under our skin in order not justto repair but even to enhance human capabilities gives rise to science
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...