Some have advocated for creating new fundamental neurorigths with universal validity such that national legislations worldwide should adapt to enforce them. Others have brought into question such a movement warning against rights inflation. We argue that we should avoid introducing new fundamental rights in any legal framework whenever possible. We call this the situated approach since whether it is possible to protect the mind without introducing new rights is a question that should be asked in each legal framework separately. We show that in the case of Chile, that can be done, and we propose how. Specifically, we provide a critical assessment of local regulatory proposals and show that, as a result of the local legislative debate, they have evolved from a universalist stance towards a much more situated view. However, we suggest that in their current state, they still are insufficiently grounded in the Chilean legal system, which we regard as providing enough protection against neurotechnological harm in most relevant cases.