Memory Modification, an enhancement or treatment?

        The modification of memories is an interesting new topic in the field of neuroscience, however the use of memory modification is still a major debate between neuroscience professionals today. In the article” Changing Memories to Treat Patients with PTSD”, published by The Atlantic in August of 2014, discusses this controversy with the case of a U.S Soldier returning from active duty in Afghanistan.  The debate of the use of memory modification comes down to three major parties, the alarmists, the modifiers and the treatmentalist.

            The Atlantic wrote an editorial on memory modification and how it might benefit PTSD patients restore their lives. The article talks about a solider named Kevin Martin, a young man in his twenties, ran over a bomb in Afghanistan and the memory stull haunts him today. After his time in the service, Kevin now attends Trinity College where he is considered disabled for his PTSD.  Kevin takes prescribed anti-anxiety medication to help cope with his symptoms from war. Yet there is new research proving that memory modification is a better treatment for people like Kevin.  A paper published in Biological Psychiatry introduces an idea that “old information is called to mind, and then re-stored with new information incorporated…” (ROMM 1)  Although this sounds like a good form of treatment, there are speculations that come.

 The Alarmists believe that the use of memory modification is rarely ever morally permissible. They argue that by using this type of treatment that the “true selves” would endanger because memories make up an important part of our true selves. Alarmists also argue that there is something valuable about bad memories because we essentially learn from them.  Although this is true, alarmists do face a major criticism in their belief, which is the case of PTSD patients. Can we really make these patients suffer when there is chance at redemption? The article from the Atlantic quotes, “ Do you loose some part of yourself if you get rid of a painful memory? Would that be worth the trade?” The alarmists response to this question would be yes you would loose yourself.  So in Kevin’s case, the alarmists still would not agree to give him such treatment., in fact they would say that memory is what makes him the man he his today. However is it fair that a man who gave his life to serve our country has to live the rest of his life in constant fear with a disorder that is ruining his life?

            Which leads me to the next set of debates, the modifiers. The modifiers believe that memory modification is morally permissible as long as it does no harm to oneself or others. They believe that memory modification would improve well-being, since identities are constantly being interpreted and depend on things that are out of our control. For example, soldiers with post-traumatic disorder that has to live each day with a disturbing memory. In Kevin’s case, the modifiers would definitely agree that he should receive memory modification treatment. Which is good because, yes Kevin does deserve relief from his PTSD but where does this treatment draw the line. Most of us would all agree that this seems like a promising position there are a few criticisms.  One would be a young teenagers first heartbreak, which we can say can disturb our well being for a while but its something that we learn from. If we delete this memory, how will we ever go on to do better?

           The figure above shows the number of occurrences that happen in American Heroes, such as Police, Military Veterans and Firefighter, and those of children and women who happened to be victims of horrendous crimes.    The treatmentalist, the last competitors in this debate, they believe that there is this sense of treatment versus enhancement theory in which memory modification should be used as a treatment and not an enhancement. Treatment is defined as something that restores someone to normal level of function whereas enhancement is something that is used to go beyond his or her normal level of functioning. I believe that this is the best approach because it supports the need for memory modification for cases such as PTSD soldiers who don’t need to live day by day constantly reminded of a horrible memory but it also does not support the need for memory modification for the case of the teenager or any other case that merely “enhances” someone’s life rather than restore it.  So yes the solider, Kevin, with PTSD would receive treatment but someone who is just going through a tough period in life would not. I agree with this because those who are victimized by a rape, by war or any other unfortunate event should not have to live their lives in constant fear or memory of what happened. If a memory is destroying someone’s life, the issue is more of quality of life versus what is moral or not.

         Memory modification is something that I strongly support. This technique can be used to restore the lives of people who suffer everyday due to a traumatic experience which are often experiences that patients are subjected to rather than by choice. I do however believe that there needs to be regulation of this treatment because not all bad memories are traumatic and most of them are learning experiences that often shape the people that we become. Paul Reber, head researcher at Northwestern University was asked the question, “ If you could edit your own memories, are there any memories you’d want to get rid of? If you have a memory of a painful event, do you lose some part of yourself if you get rid of it? Would that be worth the trade?” and his reply was “its not a simple question.” At the end of the say this technique raises multiple philosophical and ethical questions, its just not that simple. Regulation of memory modification needs to be strict and straightforward or else madness could result.  Research still continues and the debates will go on whether or not memory modification is a viable treatment for PTSD patients, however the question of whether it should be is another question.