memory removal via drugs

[dragon]

An interesting program on 60 minutes about a drug that can modify memories. While this would be great for trauma vicitims they brought up possible misuse such as brainwashing. The highlights can be seen
here

If there were a pill you could take after experiencing a painful or traumatic event that would permanently weaken your memory of what had just happened, would you take it?

An ongoing study suggests it's a choice that may not be so far off. The drug is called propranolol and it's already used to treat high blood pressure. As Lesley Stahl reports, the prospect of using propranolol to modify memory has some trauma victims filled with hope, and some critics alarmed by the potential for misuse.

[Sikon]

If research like this led eventually to drugs erasing short-term memory near-perfectly, the result in that case would be a little like the neuralyzer from Men in Black or the obliviate spell from Harry Potter. Definitely some organizations might use such technology for purposes such as wiping the memories of witnesses or interrogating someone without them remembering anything happened.

[Magus]

With the amount of mental reconditioning that could be done with this sort of thing, I wonder about the future of trial witnesses as a reliable source of information.

[Lord Zentei]

The ethical issues of this drug are manifold, and thus regulation will be required for it.

Personally, I would have more use for a drug that BOOSTS memory.

<goes back to work>

[General Zod]

With the amount of mental reconditioning that could be done with this sort of thing, I wonder about the future of trial witnesses as a reliable source of information.

Simple solution. Test their blood for traces of the drug, if none are found they're a reliable source.

[Magus]

Simple solution. Test their blood for traces of the drug, if none are found they're a reliable source.

If the drug use occurred close enough to the test date that traces would still be found.

[Big Phil]

One of the doctors interviewed on that program had a great line: (I'm paraphrasing) "Would you deny morphine to the patient of a severe auto accident so that they could experience the full effect of the pain? Why is psychological trauma any different?"

I see no reason not to go full speed ahead with these drugs.

[Magus]

One of the doctors interviewed on that program had a great line: (I'm paraphrasing) "Would you deny morphine to the patient of a severe auto accident so that they could experience the full effect of the pain? Why is psychological trauma any different?"

I see no reason not to go full speed ahead with these drugs.

I'm not a psychiatrist...but could a patient of this therapy later find these memories reawakened (much like people who naturally suppress bad experiences remembering them years later upon a trigger)? These reawakenings tend to be rather traumatic themselves, so if the same thing is possible for patients who use this drug, mightn't it be better to use therapy than produce a "medicated denial?"

[Covenant]

The memories are not suppressed or erased. You remember everything in perfect clarity like you would any other memory, but the emotional and psychological links to it are gone. The woman remembered her rape, but it didn't come to mind when she was undressing--so she didn't need to hide in the closet or whatever anymore when she needed to disrobe around her husband. It's not a memory erasal drug it's a "I'm allowed to get on with my life" drug. I see no reason to force people to feel things about their past they don't want to. All the childhood traumas that haunt people to this day--I know I'd have a few I wouldn't mind flattening out. We'd be happier people, kinder too. Less vindictive and bitter.

It's one step away from Prozium, but still, it's a good thing for PTSD like that woman had.

Plus maybe we in the Great Athiest Conspiracy could use it to obliterate people's emotional connection to fundamentalism.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Physical pain and mental pain are two different things. But lets go forward iwth the physical injury analogy.

If you saw a person who was dying of a gunshot wound, would your first instinct be to give them a drug that would make them not notice the wound or to find a doctor?

That's the whole concept here. It's not erasing the pain, it's painting over it until something or someone finds it again. This is a bad idea.

Unlike physical injuries, which can rapidly kill you, people DO need to suffer through and DEAL with their traumas not take a drug so they can forget taht they have them. Otherwise they'll never be able to fully grasp the problem. If everytime something bad happens, we just took some drug to forget it, we'd be very happy people with no regrets, filled with a plethora of unadressed mental issues that are waiting for the right trigger to go off.

I've never been one of those touchy feely "we all need to open up" kind of people, frankly i think that's idiotic, but i digress. However, i am one of those people who thinks we should deal with our problems not pretend that those problems dont exist.

[Winston Blake]

An interesting program on 60 minutes about a drug that can modify memories.

Already been invented:


Seriously though, any clandestine uses of these types of drugs have probably been used for decades by any self-respecting secret agency. For civilian uses, you have to wonder whether erasing details of of traumatic events is such a great idea. What if you get hit by a car and then can't remember what the number plate was, even though you tried to memorise it?

[General Zod]

Unlike physical injuries, which can rapidly kill you, people DO need to suffer through and DEAL with their traumas not take a drug so they can forget taht they have them. Otherwise they'll never be able to fully grasp the problem. If everytime something bad happens, we just took some drug to forget it, we'd be very happy people with no regrets, filled with a plethora of unadressed mental issues that are waiting for the right trigger to go off.

So by your logic, someone who was brutally raped or tortured for weeks should be forced to live with nightmares on a regular basis? Frankly, that's just fucking stupid. How about child molestation victims? Once they've been emotionally scarred and their abuser put into jail, by your logic they shouldn't be permitted to live a normal life just so they can remember it in all its vividness and have awkward hangups over sex and emotional relationships the rest of their life, just so they can grasp the "problem" that they were victimized.

[Aaron]

So by your logic, someone who was brutally raped or tortured for weeks should be forced to live with nightmares on a regular basis? Frankly, that's just fucking stupid. How about child molestation victims? Once they've been emotionally scarred and their abuser put into jail, by your logic they shouldn't be permitted to live a normal life just so they can remember it in all its vividness and have awkward hangups over sex and emotional relationships the rest of their life, just so they can grasp the "problem" that they were victimized.

As someone with PTSD and who hangs out with alot of people with PTSD and trauma survivors, there's a period where we all go through where we don't want to remember what happened and that this medcation would be helpful. But eventually you get to a point in your recovery where you either want to remember or have to remember what happened to progess and this could hinder the progress. However someone above mentioned that this isn't actually the case but that it makes you emotionally detached from the trauma. If thats the case it would certainly be better for all invovled if it allows you to remeber but removes the emotions involved. I wonder if you have to take it a short time after the trama or if you can take it years later? Because I'd be interested in trying it.

[Magus]

So by your logic, someone who was brutally raped or tortured for weeks should be forced to live with nightmares on a regular basis? Frankly, that's just fucking stupid. How about child molestation victims? Once they've been emotionally scarred and their abuser put into jail, by your logic they shouldn't be permitted to live a normal life just so they can remember it in all its vividness and have awkward hangups over sex and emotional relationships the rest of their life, just so they can grasp the "problem" that they were victimized.

False dilemma - Therapy successfully deals with these sorts of problems all the time. By not immediately condoning the therapy, 18 and I are not condemning the people you speak of to endless nightmares and sexual dysfunction.

We're also pointing out that, if the possibility of a resurfacing of the issue does exist, they'll need therapy anyway. Then again, I suppose you'd just have them use the drug and forget again.

18 - If I'm misrepresenting you at all, please call me out on it. I believe that we are in agreement, however.

[Magus]

...condoning the therapy...

Ghetto edit: Therapy in this instance only is referring to the new drug therapy. I should have been more specific.

[General Zod]

False dilemma - Therapy successfully deals with these sorts of problems all the time. By not immediately condoning the therapy, 18 and I are not condemning the people you speak of to endless nightmares and sexual dysfunction.

We're also pointing out that, if the possibility of a resurfacing of the issue does exist, they'll need therapy anyway. Then again, I suppose you'd just have them use the drug and forget again.

18 - If I'm misrepresenting you at all, please call me out on it. I believe that we are in agreement, however.

My problem with 18's post is his idiotic notion that whenever people are traumatized severely there's some sort of problem that they need to learn from. Frankly this makes him look like an unsympathetic piece of shit that feels even people who are purely victims, such as rape victims shouldn't be given access to this sort of treatment and they should just 'tough it out'. So no, I'm not seeing a false dilemma.

[Big Phil]

The memories are not suppressed or erased. You remember everything in perfect clarity like you would any other memory, but the emotional and psychological links to it are gone. The woman remembered her rape, but it didn't come to mind when she was undressing--so she didn't need to hide in the closet or whatever anymore when she needed to disrobe around her husband. It's not a memory erasal drug it's a "I'm allowed to get on with my life" drug. I see no reason to force people to feel things about their past they don't want to. All the childhood traumas that haunt people to this day--I know I'd have a few I wouldn't mind flattening out. We'd be happier people, kinder too. Less vindictive and bitter.

It's one step away from Prozium, but still, it's a good thing for PTSD like that woman had.

Plus maybe we in the Great Athiest Conspiracy could use it to obliterate people's emotional connection to fundamentalism.

I'm going to re-quote Covenant, and ask you all to read this before you post again. The drugs do NOT erease memories - all they do is eliminate the stress and trauma related to the memories.

When my dog died last year, I couldn't think about it for a few months afterwards without choking up; today, it doesn't make me emotional to think about it, although it's obviously not a happy memory. The drug would have moved me to how I feel about it today much quicker.

[Big Phil]

Physical pain and mental pain are two different things. But lets go forward iwth the physical injury analogy.

If you saw a person who was dying of a gunshot wound, would your first instinct be to give them a drug that would make them not notice the wound or to find a doctor?

That's the whole concept here. It's not erasing the pain, it's painting over it until something or someone finds it again. This is a bad idea.

You're just flat out wrong here, and your analogy is wrong. The drug doesn't make them forget the gunshot, but it does less the pain and allow doctors to treat the damage without the patient thrashing about in agony.

Unlike physical injuries, which can rapidly kill you, people DO need to suffer through and DEAL with their traumas not take a drug so they can forget taht they have them. Otherwise they'll never be able to fully grasp the problem. If everytime something bad happens, we just took some drug to forget it, we'd be very happy people with no regrets, filled with a plethora of unadressed mental issues that are waiting for the right trigger to go off.

People have to suffer through and HEAL their physical traumas too, but nobody suggests eliminating antibiotics, bandages, or hospitals so they can do it "naturally." You're again bringing up them forgetting the trauma, which again is just flat out incorrect.

I've never been one of those touchy feely "we all need to open up" kind of people, frankly i think that's idiotic, but i digress. However, i am one of those people who thinks we should deal with our problems not pretend that those problems dont exist.

And again, the drugs don't make the problems "not exist" or cause you to forget them at all. They simply prevent you from going into a panic when you think about them.

[Stark]

For me it would depend if it was a drug that was supposed to do these things, or actually did. Most antidepressants, for instance, are so amazingly subtle they're useless without weeks of buildup and months or years of therapy. I would never use a drug like the one in the OP if I needed to KEEP taking it, or if it was some tragically low-level effect.

Like that guy in Quarrantine who automatically turned his 'duty mod' on when his house was firebombed: his wife died, and rather than turn off his mod and deal with it he left it on for the rest of his life and never cared about it or dealt with it. I wonder if murderers will use it to remove the emotional associations from their crime?

[General Zod]

For me it would depend if it was a drug that was supposed to do these things, or actually did. Most antidepressants, for instance, are so amazingly subtle they're useless without weeks of buildup and months or years of therapy. I would never use a drug like the one in the OP if I needed to KEEP taking it, or if it was some tragically low-level effect.

Like that guy in Quarrantine who automatically turned his 'duty mod' on when his house was firebombed: his wife died, and rather than turn off his mod and deal with it he left it on for the rest of his life and never cared about it or dealt with it. I wonder if murderers will use it to remove the emotional associations from their crime?

In cases like this it's something that should be heavily regulated and not just given to the open market. Freely distribute it to those who've suffered from genuine trauma such as rape or accident victims but deny access of it to felons.

[Stark]

That's a good idea, but I'm not clear on the mechanism. Considering Sanchez's example, he might not feel any trauma from the death of his dog, but he still remembers his dog's life, and without removing the good stuff from that there's always going to be the downer that it's dead.

[Aaron]

In cases like this it's something that should be heavily regulated and not just given to the open market. Freely distribute it to those who've suffered from genuine trauma such as rape or accident victims but deny access of it to felons.

Perhaps limit it so it can only be perscribed by a psychiatrist?

[Stark]

Perhaps limit it so it can only be perscribed by a psychiatrist?

To be frank, that's LIKE making it available to everyone. Until it's effects are more understood, the only effective control might be a case-by-case court thing.

I can go to a psychiatrist and get whatever prescription drugs I want. They're no way to limit the use of a potentially dangerous drug.

[Aaron]

Perhaps limit it so it can only be perscribed by a psychiatrist?

To be frank, that's LIKE making it available to everyone. Until it's effects are more understood, the only effective control might be a case-by-case court thing.

I can go to a psychiatrist and get whatever prescription drugs I want. They're no way to limit the use of a potentially dangerous drug.

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean. Perhaps the FDA (or relevant authority in your country) should rule that this can only be doled out to certain classes of truama victims upon penalty of the psychiatrist (because their really the only ones qualified to determine who can have this sort of med) losing their license and being brought up on criminal charges. So the court and the doctor work together to determine who gets this. Because the court should help oversee the distribution of the meds to prevent misuse and the psychiatrist is there to determine if the use of the med is appropriate for the case.

And frankly a psychiatrist shouldn't be just giving out drugs to you willy nilly. Mine wouldn't even give me Viagra until we discussed it and explored the causes of my ED for three sessions.

[Covenant]

Thanks for requoting me, but people still aren't hearing right. You retain ALL the memories, you just don't feel bad about them. It's as if you remember it, but it was so long ago you don't get angry about it. All it does is weaken the emotional connection to the memory, not the memory itself.

You can describe the rape, and be upset that it happened to you, but the immense trauma of it--that sort of conditioned emotional response to a stimulus--is gone. This could also be used to treat phobias or help people recover from childhood dog-bite fears.

Right now though the drug is only in testing phase, and the military wants to begin treating homeward bound soldiers with PTSD. You don't forget the events--that's what vodka is for. You just dampen the pain of it.

There's no risk of it 're-emerging'. The lady, after she was treated with it, talked about the rape and mentioned details, but told how she didn't feel the terror and the pain anymore, and almost broke into tears saying that she finally had her own life back.

The thing's under the strictest control and can't be perscribed by anyone, and all it does is weaken the emotional bonds to a memory. The ethical questions remain, but it's important to get the facts straight.