The front page of The Washington Post was full of the usual news today. Iraq is a mess, pollsters can’t agree on which presidential candidate has the lead, what’s happening in Sudan is an utter outrage, and there’s not enough flu vaccine for the second year in a row. But none of these things are what caught my eye this morning. Instead, what drew my attention was this article: Is Every Memory Worth Keeping? Controversy Over Pills to Reduce Mental Trauma.
The article goes on to talk about a woman in Boston who had previously suffered a horrible ordeal, car jacking, attempted rape, and who recently suffered the new, and by comparison lesser, trauma of being knocked to the ground by a bicycle messenger while on her way to work. This woman volunteered for a study looking at the effects of a drug that researchers hope will allow trauma sufferers to reduce the stress of memories of the traumatic event. There were, of course, the usual admonishments by bioethicists about the misuse of drugs, with one even blatantly stating
“You can easily imagine a scenario of ‘I was embarrassed at my boss’s party last night, and I want take something to forget it so I can have more confidence when I go into the office tomorrow,’ ” said David Magnus, co-director of Stanford University’s Center for Biomedical Ethics. “It’s not hard to imagine that it will end up being used much more broadly.”
Given how drug companies are now pushing anti-depressant drugs for everything from smoking cessation to “social anxiety disorder,” I have to agree with Mr. Magnus that any drug of this type will rapidly be misused by the American populace, not to mention misprescribed by doctors.
The article over reaches a bit, going so far as to try to weigh the good of society against an individual’s desires by positing the scenario of the Holocaust survivor who chooses to forget the experience thereby depriving humanity of the valuable, historical lessons that might be learned from survivor. The researchers counter these arguments, a tad unconvincingly, by stating that the drug won’t erase memories, but merely dull the pain associated with those memories using the rationale “If this is safe and effective, it’s one of the few tools we’d have in the case of a mass disaster,” [Charles R.] Marmar said. “What are you going to do if there’s a dirty bomb? You’ll have widespread panic. Do you want these poor people to be haunted by this searing memory?”
It’s an interesting idea, a drug that can reduce the impact of painful memories. I’m not sure, though, that it’s a good idea.
Memories are part of who we are. The lessons learned in the past influence how we react to situations in the present, whether we realize it or not. I think that Magnus is right: America is a society that wants a pill for everything (lose weight, sleep better, have better sex, grow hair, learn French). Any such pill would get abused beyond belief. Do I really want to remember leaving the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to my shoe at my high school prom? Not especially. Was the embarrassment “traumatic?” Possibly not but even now I can feel myself blushing. But the experience taught me to be more aware of my surroundings, and is that such a bad thing? And as the owner of a few memories that I think anyone would agree definitely qualify as “traumatic” I’d say I can judge my own experiences.
And who decides what qualifies as an event traumatic enough to merit this new drug? Is there a threshold for the number of people effected that would automatically qualify an event? I personally found the plane hitting the Pentagon a lot more traumatic than I did the collapse of both World Trade center buildings and the death toll was much, much lower. Frankly, the ability to screw around with my memories isn’t a power I want my government to have.