Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access December 6, 2013

Ethical considerations in the use of brain-computer interfaces

Emilia Mikołajewska and Dariusz Mikołajewski
From the journal Open Medicine


Nervous system disorders are among the most severe disorders. Significant breakthroughs in contemporary clinical practice may provide brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and neuroprostheses (NPs). The aim of this article is to investigate the extent to which the ethical considerations in the clinical application of brain-computer interfaces and associated threats are being identified. Ethical considerations and implications may significantly influence further development of BCIs and NPs. Moreover, there is significant public interest in supervising this development. Awareness of BCIs’ and NPs’ threats and limitations allow for wise planning and management in further clinical practice, especially in the area of long-term neurorehabilitation and care.

[1] Mikołajewska E., Mikołajewski D., Neuroprostheses for increasing disabled patients’ mobility and control, Adv Clin Exp Med, 2012, 21, 263–272 Search in Google Scholar

[2] Mikołajewska E., Mikołajewski D., Technical and medical problems concerning wider use of neuroprostheses in patients with neurologic disorders, JNNN, 2012, 1, 119–123 Search in Google Scholar

[3] Hansson S. O., Implant ethics, J Med Ethics, 2005, 31, 519–525 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[4] Clausen J., Moving minds: ethical aspects of neural motor prostheses, Biotechnol J, 2008, 3, 1493–1501 in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Saha S., Chhatbar P., The future of implantable neuroprosthetic devices: ethical considerations, J Long Term Eff Med Implants, 2009, 19, 123–137 in Google Scholar

[6] Glannon W., Stimulating brains, altering minds, J Med Ethics, 2009, 35, 289–292 in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Ford P. J., Kubu C. S., Stimulating debate: ethics in a multidisciplinary functional neurosurgery committee, J Med Ethics, 2006, 32, 106–109 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[8] Mikołajewska E., Biofeedback as the element of the neurorehabilitation, J Health Sci, 2012, 2, 135–148 Search in Google Scholar

[9] Xu J., Shen L. X., Yan C. H., et al. Personal characteristics related to the risk of adolescent internet addiction: a survey in Shanghai, China. BMC Public Health, 2012, 12: 1106 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Heinz A., Kipke R., Heimann H., et al., Cognitive neuroenhancement: false assumptions in the ethical debate, J Med Ethics, 2012, 38, 372–375 in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Shaw D. M., Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics, J Med Ethics, 2012, 38, 605–608. in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Warvick K., I, cyborg, Champaign: University of Illinois Press 2004 Search in Google Scholar

[13] Honeybul S., Gillett G. R., Ho K. M., et al., Neurotrauma and the rule of rescue, J Med Ethics 2011, 37, 707–710 in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Breshears J. D., Gaona C. M., Roland J. L., et al., Decoding motor signals from the pediatric cortex: implications for brain-computer interfaces in children, Pediatrics, 2011, 128, e160–168 in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Roland J., Miller K., Freudenburg Z., et al., The effect of age on human motor electrocorticographic signals and implications for brain-computer interface applications, J Neural Eng, 2011, 8, 046013 in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Kübler A., Birbaumer N., Brain-computer interfaces and communication in paralysis: extinction of goal directed thinking in completely paralysed patients?, Clin Neurophysiol, 2008, 119, 2658–2666 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[17] Kübler A., Furdea A., Halder S., et al. A brain-computer interface controlled auditory event-related potential (p300) spelling system for locked-in patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2009, 1157, 90–100 in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Haselager P., Vlek R., Hill J., et al., A note on ethical aspects of BCI, Neural Netw, 2009, 22, 1352–1357. in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Jox R. J., Schaider A., Marckmann G., et al., Medical futility at the end of life: the perspectives of intensive care and palliative care clinicians, J Med Ethics, 2012, 38, 540–545 in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] McFarland D. J., Sarnacki W. A., Wolpaw J. R., Should the parameters of a BCI translation algorithm be continually adapted?, J Neurosci Methods, 2011, 199, 103–107 in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[21] Müller S., Walter H., Reviewing autonomy: Implications of the neurosciences and the free will debate for the principle of respect for the patient’s autonomy. Camb Q Healthc Ethics, 2010, 19, 205–217 in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Shannon C. E., A mathematical theory of communication, The Bell System Technical Journal, 1948, 27, 379–423, 623–656 in Google Scholar

[23] van den Brand R., Heutschi J., Barraud Q., et al., Restoring voluntary control of locomotion after paralyzing spinal cord injury, Science, 2012, 336, 1182–1185 in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Dominici N., Keller U., Vallery H., et al., Versatile robotic interface to evaluate, enable and train locomotion and balance after neuromotor disorders, Nat Med, 2012, 18, 1142–1147 in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Voge C. M., Stegemann J. P., Carbon nanotubes in neural interfacing applications, J Neural Eng, 2011, 8, 011001 in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Kotchetkov I. S., Hwang B. Y., Appelboom G., et al., Brain-computer interfaces: military, neurosurgical, and ethical perspective, Neurosurg Focus, 2010, 28, E25 in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Vlek R. J., Steines D., Szibbo D., et al., Ethical issues in brain-computer interface research, development, and dissemination, J Neurol Phys Ther, 2012, 36, 94–99 in Google Scholar PubMed

Published Online: 2013-12-6
Published in Print: 2013-12-1

© 2013 Versita Warsaw

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Scroll Up Arrow