This paper examines the emergence of neurorights as a legal response to the normative risks associated with the development of neurotechnologies. After defining the concept and its core elements, we adopt a selective comparative perspectives on global south regulatory pathways. It analyzes the Chilean constitutional reform as a pioneering but contested experience, contrasts it with the Brazilian scenario of still-fragmented legislative initiatives, and incorporates the Mexican debate on a general law on neurorights and neurotechnologies and the Argentine discussion on conceptual, procedural, and forensic limits. The article argues that the current Brazilian legal framework provides relevant but insufficient protection against risks such as mind reading, unauthorized neural monitoring, mental-state inference, cognitive manipulation, and the procedural misuse of neural evidence. It further argues that the Brazilian debate should not simply reproduce the Chilean formula, but should instead combine reinterpretations of existing constitutional guarantees with targeted statutory innovation, informed by inter-American principles, PARLATINO’s model law, and UNESCO guidance. The conclusion is that a future Brazilian framework must be comparatively informed, conceptually restrained, and institutionally adapted to the country’s constitutional and regulatory architecture.