Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41209353›Full record

ArticleNeuroethics2025

Enslaving Minds: On Freedom of Thought and the Exploitation of Mental Vulnerabilities.

Sjors Ligthart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sjors LigthartTilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One central principle often derived from the right to freedom of thought (RFoT) is that persons' inner thoughts shall not be impermissibly altered. Since a clear definition of 'impermissible alteration' of thought is lacking, the meaning and scope of this principle are largely uncertain. Scholars are now exploring how to operationalise the notion of 'impermissible alteration' of thought. For this, some have appealed to the concept of 'manipulation', proposing that mind interventions plausibly infringe the RFoT if they are manipulative. This paper argues that the appeal to manipulation is unpersuasive. It explores the potential of the distinct notion of exploitation, which is, unlike manipulation, an international legal concept that underpins absolute prohibitions in human rights law.

Indexed as

Absolute protectionExploitationFreedom of thoughtHuman rightsInformed consentManipulation

Identifiers

PMID41209353
PMCPMC12594718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.