The Ethics of Erasing a Bad Memory

[Trevelyan_06]

You have a point about the psychological problems, however, if the situation was pointed out to her, and she was asked if she wanted to receive the treatment, but refused, at least it could be said to be her own fault(partially, the guy on the intercom was at fault too). They did have more than a split second to make the decision too, remember that it erases your last few "minutes" not your last few seconds.

See though if they did this, it would have affected her subconsious mind perhaps. She could have said yes, I want to forget about this, but once having made that consious decision there is a good chance that her subconsious is going to move it to remember it for her. It'd be her bodies natural pyschological response to a traumic event. When they did it like they did, it really hadn't had time for the concept to sink in all the way and filter down through the many layers of her memory/mind. If they would have waited and asked her about it and she said yes, she probably would have consiously forgotten it but her subconsious would maybe have remembered. Which, would probably be a worse way to go even, because then she might have trauma associated with this memory but not be able to actively recall the memory, compounding the problem.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

See though if they did this, it would have affected her subconsious mind perhaps. She could have said yes, I want to forget about this, but once having made that consious decision there is a good chance that her subconsious is going to move it to remember it for her. It'd be her bodies natural pyschological response to a traumic event. When they did it like they did, it really hadn't had time for the concept to sink in all the way and filter down through the many layers of her memory/mind. If they would have waited and asked her about it and she said yes, she probably would have consiously forgotten it but her subconsious would maybe have remembered. Which, would probably be a worse way to go even, because then she might have trauma associated with this memory but not be able to actively recall the memory, compounding the problem.

That's merely a theory and by no means fact. If the drug erases your memory completely, there should be absolutely no recalling, subconscious or otherwise. For that matter though, if what you say is true, what's to have stopped the panicked trauma from burning the memory into her subconscious?

[Trevelyan_06]

That's merely a theory and by no means fact.

You're absolutely correct, that is just a theory and what you suggested may have indeed worked just as well. I should have used the word could and not would. That's the other thing that I'm getting at though. We can't know if there was a better solution to this or not because we're just computer chair generals here.

The trauma could very well have been burned into her subconscious even with the knock out drug. The thing to remember though, it wasn't. The result we have is someone who heard horrible news in an equally horrible way, who was apparently(we can't know for sure because we aren't her) spared both the conscious and subconscious memory of the trauma. Does this mean the ends justify the means? That's the million dollar questions that has been asked more times throughout the course of human history than can be remembered.

The decision was made split-second based on the opinions/observations of one man. Could there have been a better, more ethical way to do this? Sure there could have been. He very well could have talked it over with her, then did it and gotten the exact same results. I was merely trying to offer reasons why he possibly decided not to go that route and did what he did. It was his opinion that he didn't have the time to talk it over with her so he took action.

The topic is certainly open for debate and is probably one that should be debated. Ethics is not a black and white situation and is best served by debate.

[Prrkitty]

I've been thinking about this all day (for some reason) and I honestly feel sorry for the doctor. They (the doctor/anesthiologist) only had a split second to decide what to do before she totally freaked out on 'em.

For some reason my empathy for the doctor is on overdrive...

[Trevelyan_06]

I've been thinking about this all day (for some reason) and I honestly feel sorry for the doctor. They (the doctor/anesthiologist) only had a split second to decide what to do before she totally freaked out on 'em.

For some reason my empathy for the doctor is on overdrive...

Doctor's are often put into situations where they have to make such split second, and in fairness not so split second, decisions that will affect people for the rest of their lives. It's part of the reason why the schooling/training to become a doctor is so hard. A person that is a doctor has an awesome responsibility on their shoulders and many times they have earned the right to carry said responsibility. However, it's important to remember that they are still human and not above self-doubt and that's it's really fucking hard to be a doctor .

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Well actually we just haven't heard of her having subconscious trauma, that just means the information hasn't gone public if she has, not that it hasn't happened. My point was this is a decision that was made for her and without her consent, although the reasons for making the decision can be correct in a sense, the decision itself could not be.

The debate here is giving a person free will versus doing what's "best" for them, wether they like it or not. If we make decisions for a person in their life, it may result well for them, but who are we to say that what we did was right if that is not what they wanted? Does a person not have the right to choose their own fate?

[Prrkitty]

However, it's important to remember that they are still human and not above self-doubt and that's it's really fucking hard to be a doctor .

OH so true... we like to rag on doctors a lot but they hold the lives of so many people in their hands every second of every day.

Which is why they burn out so easily at that type of job...

[Trevelyan_06]

The debate here is giving a person free will versus doing what's "best" for them, wether they like it or not. If we make decisions for a person in their life, it may result well for them, but who are we to say that what we did was right if that is not what they wanted? Does a person not have the right to choose their own fate?

I don't think the anesthesiologist was trying to take away her free will. You are right though, he did what he thought best for her at the time. However, he is a medical professional and it's often his job to do such. If you're undergoing an operation to remove kidney stones and during the course of it they find out you have an appendix that is about to burst they aren't going to wake you up and ask you if you want it left in or taken out, they're going to do what's best for you at the time.

Now I realize that's a different situation from one's memories, but it has some of the same elements. This man was trying to protect the mental health of this woman by taking a traumatic experience that should never have happened in the first place. The decision can easily be picked apart by us with the limitless amount of time we have available, he didn't have that option. In his opinion he had only a split-second to let the woman suffer with the memory or erase it for her. Regardless of whether or not it could have been successfully erased after talking it over with her, his opinion was that he had to act immediately to get the desired effect.

In this I think he acted as a medical professional making a decision in the what he thought was the best interest medically of the patient. I believe there is a big difference between this and say, telling a person who they'll marry because you've decided it would be best for them.

[AtmaWeapon]

The problem here is that ethical analysis of an issue is rarely cut-and-dried and is almost always sensitive to context. I will return to this point.

Were I investigating this particular event as part of an inquiry, I am positive that my result would insist that a rigid process for announcing results were instituted; if the person reporting the results had not used the intercom, the dilemma would not have presented itself.

Now, to the dilemma. Doctors with bad news have somewhat of an ethical obligation to make a judgment of the person's psychological state and decide the best method to deliver the news. This doctor had already observed that this was not the right time to reveal it. The anesthesiologist had to make a decision; expose the woman to a more traumatic experience, or go against her wishes and erase the memory.

Personally, I'd say in a situation like this I'd prefer to sacrifice my rights to be told in a better manner. I honestly can't see how the woman was harmed by this decision. However, I don't think there's a "right" answer to this situation.

[Gleeok]

I think the Doctors involved in the procedure did nothing wrong. We grant them that power in those situations to make split-second decisions, and leave it at their discretion.

Personally however, I would be really pissed off if I ever found out that happened to me. There was no physiological reason to use anesthesia at that point in the operation, therefore in my opinion it was unnecessary.