Neurorights from Theory to Practice: A Bidirectional Instrument and Neurobiological Individuality

Abstract Neurorights frameworks have advanced rapidly, yet remain oriented toward legislators, regulators, and technology developers, leaving their translation into practitioner-facing obligations underdeveloped. This paper makes two contributions. First, it introduces a bidirectional instrument for the operationalization of neurorights in neurotechnological practice, developed in the practical context of a professional code of ethics [details withheld for review]. The instrument links domains, values, protected interests, rights, and practitioner obligations, and can be applied both deductively, from established neurorights toward clinical obligations, and abductively, from recurring clinical situations toward potentially unrecognized objects of protection. It thereby offers a method for assessing whether recurring concerns warrant recognition as distinct objects of protection — including a criterion for distinguishing genuinely novel rights from reinterpretations of existing ones. Second, applying this instrument, the paper advances as its primary claim that Neurobiological Individuality constitutes a distinct neuroright establishing a presumption that distinctive neurobiological configurations are not to be treated as deficient or correctable solely because they diverge from prevailing statistical, clinical, cultural, or technological norms, with the burden of justification resting on intervention. It is distinguished from adjacent concepts, including Mental Integrity, psychological continuity, neurodiversity, and authenticity, and grounded in accounts of human flourishing (Nordenfelt), psychological continuity (Parfit), and authenticity (Gordon). A secondary possibility, explored in the discussion, is that Neurobiological Individuality may provide an interpretive lens for understanding recurring questions concerning neurobiological variation within existing neurorights. The analysis offers both a method for operationalizing neurorights in clinical practice and a framework for recognizing objects of protection that remain dispersed throughout the contemporary neurorights landscape.