Ethical Concerns about Memory Dampeners - Literature review Example

Ethical Concerns about Memory Dampeners Introduction People around the world face situations, which alter their life and stricken them with memories that trouble them from time to time. There are various approaches that treat the mind, but the most inappropriate involves the use of memory dampeners. Memory dampeners suppress the mind to delete a particular unwanted memory (Kolber 1562). It suppresses the emotional disturbance after medication within six hours after the event. However, the President Council on Bioethics (PCB) has a different opinion concerning the use of Propranolol and memory altering medication (Kolber 1569). It raises various concerns regarding ethics violation on the issue, which this paper will reflect. The use of memory dampeners to suppress emotional pain and erase unwanted memories proves a great success in medicine. However, some people and organizations see it as a violation of ethical rules in the society. No matter how dire the situation may be, memories are valuable, and such actions must be carefully evaluated before carrying out such procedures. In a society where the ability to erase certain events recorded in our minds is possible, conflictions may arouse. A time comes where there will be the need to access and refer to such memories. The procedure also has unwanted side effects including unintentional erasure and memory loss. The procedure involves the use of a medical drug called Propranolol, approved by the FDA (Kolber 1563). Such an organization is the President Council on Bioethics (PCB). It makes emphasis on other forms of medication such as working with the patient through the disturbing memory until the conflicting issue resolves. Many legal restrictions are based on the issue of memory dampening. Nevertheless, PCB raises its concern with the ethics of these medical procedures. A major concern on the ethical point of memory dampeners is that it damages and dehumanizes the human psychology affecting their minds hence disturbing the quality of their lives. It refers to the previous memory analysis as being adaptive and stresses that the use of pharmaceutical to dampen memory releases the mind from it environmental connection with the real world. This results in the loss of the sense of identity of the patient under medication (Kolber 1596). It considers this highly among its prudent ethical concerns as it inhibits the individual from living a healthy and normal life making it less meaningful. PCB claims that the use of medication in memory dampening is a cheap solution to the problem. It is important for the individual to face their emotional pain and terms it as any easy way to avoid distress by helping the individual flee emotional pain (Kolber 1599). Emotional pain defines our humanity, it the root of the feeling of being human, and taking that away from an individual in the disguise of help is unethical. In Gilberts Meialander’s view, it is more appropriate to face the struggle and have the chance of redemption. It gives the individual the sense of a making a step forward rather than taking a blind leap forward. It also gives a person a sense to make the memory and experience share the memory with others as a narrative of their lives. Memory dampening disorients the life of a person creating gaps in their mind hence generating an obstructed and unorganized memory. Other researchers claim that it leads to the loss or gains of new personality hence concluding the effect of being in an unrealistic environment with no sense of identity. Some incidents may be too tragic beyond redemption. However, the PCB prefers a different solution rather than have the patient indulge in the use of memory dampeners. Living through a memory helps the individual gain the skill of conquering such events and helps the mind become stable and prepared to tackle such ideas (Halgin 2009). This concern heavily contradicts the use of memory dampening drugs and terms them as a poor life choice that sheds no light of arising complications such as addictions and increased psychological distress. The drug will be a haven for memory distraught people leading to addiction and deteriorated mental orientation. The issue of the loss of personal identity is another concern brought to light by the President Council on Bioethics. Identity and memory are two figures that closely relate to each other (Freeman et al. 2009). Past experiences help us feel a certain sense of our identity; our experiences define who we are and what we have become (Halgin 2009). Memories relive and replay our experiences and are the hub to access such parts of our lives. However, memory might not be the paramount portion of our identity but it defines much of our psychological connections and makes awareness of human existence. Medical memory disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease disorient memories and results in the victim having an unstable sense of identity (Kolber 1600). Realizing how much of connection there is between memory and identity, the Council provides the conclusion that using medical dampening drugs affects the stability of our memories hence destabilizing the sense of identity. Even without the help of memory dampeners, the mind and memories have a certain rate of degradation and decay. They conclude that people can edit their memories and define their past in new meaning relating the memory to be an experience and sometimes the disorientation of the past make the life easy to cope. The mind can cope with such distraught memories, and it is the best option to let it sort its problems naturally rather than induce medical dampeners. Another concern is about the ability to lead a genuine experience in life. The Council restates that chemical alterations of the mind via memory dampening make the life less genuine affecting the individual’s quality of living. According to the Council, some memories are too tragic to carry. However, the use of memory dampeners affects the mind deluding its environment making it less realistic and substantially affecting the person who leaves a significant portion of their identity severed (Kolber 1602). In such lives, the mind degrades and decays memories faster than a natural mind would hence cause the degradation and ingenuity of life over a period. The council prefers to an approach based on proper procedural activities that will help the mind overcome trauma instead of indulging in drugs such as propranolol that disorient the mind. Many people argue that the President Council on Bioethics is based on blind premises regarding the issue on the use of memory dampening drugs. It is understandable that not many will agree with the issues brought up by the PCB since it is a more personal concern to the person having trauma or tragic memories. The Council views the medication as a bias and opposition to the minds ability to cope with tragedy and traumatic memories, memories naturally present the sense of identity, and memories are best in their natural state rather than undergo alteration chemically (Kolber 1605). The world is diverse, and there are many people and every person responds differently to situations. Other people have a better mind regeneration and response in times of trauma while others are slow and cannot help but seek further help from memory dampening drugs (Freeman et al. 2009). Pharmaceutical medication in memory control is not always acknowledgeable and evident in cases of Alzheimer’s disease. There is the reason to defend the natural stability of our human lives without additional invocation of other factors that disorient our balance in the name of medical aid. The writer Andrew Solomon explicitly explains that improper implementations of factors, which define our humanity, are a scoring prospect. There is the responsibility to protect our humanity, without which we are no more different from animals. Conclusion The councils’ analysis states that the degradation of our humanity via memory dampening hands us too much control of our lives, which violates the respect of the natural balance and the aspect of being human as well as main ethical principles. Nobody has control over how these experiences come and go. It simply happens and it constitutes who we are and the possibility of erasure is unethical to a person. These PCB raises these ethical concerns over memory dampening and consideres them as unethical and illegal. Works Cited Freeman, Michael D. A, and Oliver R. Goodenough. Law, Mind and Brain. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009. Print. Halgin, Richard P. Taking Sides. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. Print. Kolber, Adam J. "Therapeutic Forgetting: The legal and ethical implications of memory dampening." Vanderbilt law review 59 (2006): 1561 Read More