Ethics Behind Memory Modification

As technology rapidly advances, more researchers are looking into the possibility of memory adjustment. Those with crippling phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder would no longer have to worry about traumatic memories. As mentioned in an article by Fikri Birey of Scientific American,"events of extreme stress can force the cognitive restructuring of one's worldview, sometimes to the extent that leads to major social disability." The way to combat this, besides therapy, could be the possibility of removing the memories of those stresses altogether.

Although a way to eradicate trauma completely has yet to be discovered, there have been significant advances in the development of memory modification techniques (MMTs) which could make it possible to intervene in the memory systems in very specific ways to affect their function and contents (Liao at all). As more and more research is being done on memory, and as more information is being discovered involving MMTs, ethical issues are becoming increasingly prevalent, as discussed in The Normativity of Memory Modification paper. The author discusses various reasons why MMTs could raise normative issues. They conclude that MMTs should be left up to each individual to decide for themselves, taking into consideration all the possible negative outcomes.

Joe Vukov, assistant professor of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, presents the arguments of The Alarmists, who believe that bad memories are valuable precisely because they are bad. These memories, according to alarmists, create a core set of features unique to each person. They create a unique personality and character that would be damaged by memory modification. This view is might be easier to adopt for those who haven’t experienced any sort of PTSD, or a sort of social disability caused by a phobia. Modifiers believe that as long as memory modification does not harm the individual or others, then it is morally permissible. The issue of identity isn’t as prevalent because, according to modifiers, identities are constantly being reinterpreted and are dependent on factors outside our control (Vukov). Finally, the views of treatmentalism state that memory modification is morally permissible if it is a treatment to restore someone to a state where the phobia or traumatic experience is no longer affecting their level of functioning. This view, in my opinion, is the most reasonable for those who wish to pursue memory modification techniques for the sake of recovering a lifestyle prior to trauma. I think it is unfair to deny patients with PTSD or rape trauma or any other life-altering memories a way to overcome the emotional stressors. If memory modification techniques continue to advance in the coming years, people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to remove or alter a memory to revert them back to a certain previous state, especially if the memory is preventing him or her from living life happily.
References

Birey, Fikri. “Memories Can Be Edited.” Scientific American. Springer Nature, 08 May 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Liao, S. M., & Sandberg, A. (2008). The normativity of Memory Modification. Neuroethics. 1(2), 85-99, doi:10.1007/s12512-008-0990-5.

Enduring Questions and the Ethics of Memory Modification: Presentation by Joe Vukov, PhD