(no subject)

[dour.livejournal.com]

An ethical question has popped up recently, with the discovery of drugs that can prevent memories from forming. They have to be taken shortly after the incident to be effective; they prevent the passage of a memory from short-term to long-term. Is it okay, poses this dilemma, for emergency paramedics to administer these drugs to an unconscious trauma victim, without their consent because by the time they're conscious it'll be too late, so as to prevent memories of the trauma from haunting the victim?

I don't see how this is a question. No, of course it isn't. Our memories are what make us who we are. Our memories are the source of all our knowledge, all our functional awareness of how life works, and how to best live. This is what wisdom is. This is how children become adults. Taking a memory away, is taking away a tool. A confused and stressed-out person may, it's true, be unable to avoid hurting themselves with that tool. But again, the only way to learn how is through more experience. If the tool, the memory, is simply taken away, the person becomes less adult, less complete, less of a person than they would otherwise be. Loss is loss, period.

These drugs are far from FDA approval. More powerful technological means of editing a mind's contents, such as through cybernetic interfacing, are of course farther still, though visible on the horizon. But I didn't expect to have to run into this dilemma in real life so soon, so early. I forgot that there's another way for memories to vanish from one mind through the conscious action of another, which has been around for as long as the human mind. And more to the point, I didn't think anyone I knew would ever use it.

I've had several close friends with multiple personality syndrome. Dissociative Identity Disorder, DID, is the chic tag. I have a knack for identifying them, getting along with them, drawing them out; I understand the mechanics of the phenomenon, often better than they do, and this often earns me the trust of the more guarded, deeper personae. They are, for obvious reasons, some of the most complex people I know; some of the most gratifying to converse and interact with. I tend to become close friends with multiples, because they stimulate my fascination with the workings of the mind, and I provide a person who they can talk to honestly and openly about their situation, without getting weird stares, being called a freak, or fearing the psych ward showing up at their door to collect.

On a couple of occasions, I've fallen in love with multiples. Not with individual personalities, that would be a disaster; I only let it happen if I can love the whole system, all its parts. Because even as they are many, they are also one, inseparable. I am in love with one right now, and have been for the better part of two years now. It's a good, strong love; the kind that's perfectly comfortable being friends from a few hundred miles if logistics dictates. But then she was killed. Not a normal death. Not a death anyone else would notice. Reversable, even. But to me, it's the same as if she stopped breathing in my arms.

One of her peers, one of the deep ones who rarely comes out, who sits in the background trying to nudge here and there and help her be happier, decided that she'd be happier if she stopped thinking about a certain person. A person who she idolized, and held herself up against, and constantly found herself failing to match (of course; this person is significantly older than her, much more practiced at all the things she does). Impatience and frustration have often made her sink into depression over this perceived failure. So this deeper peer erased that person from her mind. He thought this would help. And after the first try didn't stick, he went through a little more thoroughly, and erased all the associated things that would trigger the memories he'd identified as malignant.

The idol was an ex-girlfriend of mine. So most memories of me were excised. Years of history. Things as recent as a couple of weeks ago. She still knows who I am in general terms, and that I am a friend, but nothing more. It's been purged from the "primary" self's awareness, and in fact from a couple of others as well.

When I spoke with her, it didn't take long to figure out what had been done. And then, the one who did it came out to tell me why. And I understand. I know what he was thinking, why he thought it would help. And he pointed to the fact that she was clearly happier now.

I tried to explain what was wrong with it. That what she had wasn't happiness, it was innocence; that without the memories, the lessons learned, without actually overcoming this problem on her own, she remained a child. That his caring hand wiping away the pain was also wiping away the wisdom gained from all those memories, and that which could be further gained by her overcoming this problem on her own.

Am I wrong? Does anyone have a good argument to the contrary? This is an existing ethical dilemma because it really is a hard question. Made harder, of course, by the fact that on a certain level all of these actions are occuring within a single mind. Can I argue against someone's right to do this to themselves?

Maybe not, but the same arguments stand against it being the right thing to do.

He still has her memories. He can put them back. But last I checked, he doesn't think he should. I asked him if he'd work with me on this... we're going to talk again when we have more time available.

I don't know what will come of this. But right now, someone I love is gone.

Comments

[luwana.livejournal.com]

I think you are in the right here.

There are memories I would like to erase. But they have helped to make me who I am now. Without them I would no longer be the same person. I would be happier. But I would not be me.

That decision should be mine to take, and mine alone. Nobody else should have the right to meddle with my memories.


~Selene

[nynomi.livejournal.com]

As someone who's had - not memories, but tastes, inclinations, desires - taken away from me by others in the body, and then given back, I have to say it is an unfair thing to do, no matter how high-minded the motivation. I hope you can work with him to help him see he's not being fair.

Luna

I dissagree with you.

[krystale.livejournal.com]

Yes, you have a right to argue but no, you have no right in any part of the decision.

Frankly I'll bet she is happier. If dissascociation kept us alive why the heck can't it make her happier? By the way, that was rhetorical, it's a useless arguement to be had on that, it's just my opinion I plan to stick with.

Geoff says he's taken some of my memories. Pandora's got a TON in her box. I don't want them back, ever, no matter how long these "body memories" continue. I'm depressed enough as it is. I have a hard time admiting I'm a multiple sometimes and don't like sharing my body with others, but I certainly don't want all those miserable tortured memories. How anyone can fuss over how unfair it is for one alter to take memories from another is beyond me. No one fought when they were taking away the abuse memories, and something like this measuring against someone is just self abuse.

Anna Marie

And I disagree with you. *climbs onto soapbox*

[thebkcam.livejournal.com]

I personally think that the removal of ALL of someone's memories regarding a very important person, especially one with a positive influence on their life, for purpose of making them "happy" without their consent isn't right. In fact, I'd even argue that it could be considered abusive in a controlling fashion. Being "happy" isn't what life's about. "Life is suffering," Buddha said, and while I'm not a Buddhist, I think he had a point there. You lose a LOT of the richness of life if you don't allow for some pain.

Suggested reading: Brave New World, Aldous Huxley.

Re: And I disagree with you. *climbs onto soapbox*

[krystale.livejournal.com]

I've read it. Good book. Yes, suffering is part of life, and I have no right to decide for the person in question. I simply meant, and was probally not clear enough, that I would be OK with it being done to me. Others inside me would argue however, but don't feel the need, as so many are already on that side, and I'm just offering a counter view.

Anna Marie

Re: I dissagree with you.

[kangetsuhime.livejournal.com]

You don't want them. Good for you. But somebody else, like me for example, might want to keep their memories, and what is being argued here is somebody removing a system member's memories *without consent*.

Re: I dissagree with you.

[perse.livejournal.com]

But who is to say that it was without her consent? The partner? The partner doesn't necessarily have all of the facts of the situation, particularly if the one who took on the memories is a very strong one who isn't out that often and not in constant or clear communication with the partner regarding the state of things and which decisions are being made and why.

[krystale.livejournal.com]

Oh, but I do agree that EMT's shouldn't use that drug. But alters are different, they're all created by the same brain no matter how different they become.

[saturniakitty.livejournal.com]

Not nesecarily. Many multiples, including myself, have walkins - people who weren't created by the brain, but instead moved in.

[krystale.livejournal.com]

There are a great many arguments to be had on the topic of walk ins. None of these arguments interest me. I have one who claims to be a walk in, and I do not discredit her belief, for I am not one to know any of the true workings of spirits and conciousnesses, but personally, I don't believe it. I think she was created by our same grey matter with the belief she was not to protect her from the putridness of our life before she came. My statement above was simply to say that EMT's have no right to this. Indeed, others sharing our brain do not either, unless we give them that right, and I for one, give that right to my others.

[kangetsuhime.livejournal.com]

I second the above. Selene is a walk-in.

Question:

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

So, out of curiousity, how does that make it any different than a single who also was created by gray matter? Also, what effect does this have on the morality in question?

It's like when I was discussing the relative percieved "reality" of singles and multis, if a multiple's perception of themselves is a creation, and illusion of the mind, how is a singles perception of themselves any different? Isn't their perception also an illusion of the mind, among other things, an attempt to make sense of the data from the sensory organs? Where is the definitive difference in mechanism? Filters which don't allow for a complete picture? Singles have those too.

Mind, I've got opinions, but remember, none of this stuff is stuff we know, cognition and self-perception is not something any one school of thought has been able to completely encompass.

All of this is our thoughts, which are colored by our perceptions, which we are not sure about anyway.

--Me

[thebkcam.livejournal.com]

I think you're right on target about how this "happiness" isn't really happiness, but something else entirely. If I were you, though, I'd try to explain things to the person whose memories were erased, so that she knows what's going on. If she agrees with you, you may even have a better chance arguing with the one who did the erasing, since then you'd be able to argue, without contradiction, that it wasn't what SHE wanted at all.

[amusedinsanity.livejournal.com]

First off, I am (we are) multiple, and within our own minds, we are all extremely paranoid about what little we have left in tact being meddled with. It's what built and shaped us, it's a part of us that only we have - it's how we identify ourselves, in some ways, even if the memories are painful. In the case of abusive memories, I can understand a kind of repression until the person who is affected by them is at a better place in life where they may be able to cope better with the memories, however memories that -aren't- trauma based... why would you need to mess with those? Even if they cause difficulty? The things you do in life are what shape you, her actions of holding herself up to someone else's mold is something she chose in her mind, in some way, to do herself. It is part and parcel of the learning process, learning at what point you can no longer compare yourself to anyone else, that you have to live and grow and be by your own standards instead of trying to fit in a mold that someone else created. To take away that ability to choose and grow is to stifle someone, and that can be more harmful in the long run then taking the pain away. It's taking away the ability to learn from mistakes, and to become a better person through learning about yourself... and when it takes away someone you care about, someone truely important in your life, how can that be helpful? If I lost the woman I love more then anything simply to make my mind more at ease... that is something I could never forgive. We have our emotional ups and downs, but she is everything to me, and I would rather take every bump, bruise and hard knock just to spend my life with her then ever have that taken away.

I feel that indevidual is wrong, and is taking away her basic rights as a person. As a multiple, we as a system could never condone the removal of memories of any kind, traumatic or not traumatic, without consent. Unless she -knew- they were being taken and why and what effect it would have on her life, it is as good as manipulating someone else's mind and taking away thier rights to think and live for themselves. We wouldn't do that to our fellows in separate bodies, we have no right to do it to our fellows in the same body. It's manipulation and control and... *shudders* arr I'm getting ranty. Tampering with the mind and memory is something we're highly paranoid about, because our memory is so skewed and damaged as is. The thought of what little is left in tact being tampered with, our free will being tampered with... it's a terrifying thought, to us.

I wish you luck in this, it's something her system will have to address for themselves, because in the end you don't have much right to demand anything, however speaking on her behalf is something I feel you are in the right to do, since she obviously cannot speak for herself on the issue, for she is unaware of it.

~Ralkarin and Ghost for the Shadowalkers

[whisperedones.livejournal.com]

The whole memory thing?

Not acceptable. Nobody, NOBODY has the right to mess with someone's mind like that. To me, that's worse, far FAR worse than rape. That's going straight into the most protected, most private place and just ripping pieces out. And yes, We are victims of many different assaults. Of course, rape is bad, but there's all kinds violation.

We are multiple. We are what We are because of memories. Erasing them, just to get rid of a trauma? That would be killing off one of Our members. Painful as they are, We have come to accepting them and even loving those who hold those memories.

I'm sorry you lost someone in that way. We've had members die too, and it's just as traumatic and hurtful as any physical death could be, but I'm afraid you have no right to make a demand of that system. Yes, you lost someone, but you're not of the system, and thus, you don't have any rights with them. You are allowed to express how you feel, but that's it. I'm ranting, I know. I sound like a bitch, I know. :P

-Blue and Ice for the Whispered Ones

[thebkcam.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on your first point, but your second point is boggling me. A system is just a group of people who happen to be stuck in the same body. It's like a family, really, except instead of having genes in common, they have to share their means of interacting with the physical world. I don't see why someone outside of the body has no rights with them. It smacks of elitism to my mind. He and this person were close enough to be really involved with each other, but in the end, he doesn't have any rights because he's not inside that skin?

Just because people are in the same system doesn't mean they know what's best for someone any better than a very close, open-minded friend outside of the system does. And the person who should know best in this situation has had her memories erased, so now it's really hard, if not impossible, to know what's the right thing to do now.

(Deleted and reposted since this is a reply, rather than a standalone comment.)

[perse.livejournal.com]

I am confused by an apparent contradiction where you say that you only fall in love with the whole system and then go on to be upset about the loss of one within the system.

Not that I cannot empathize, but that doesn't make sense to me.

In talking about taking away memories, per se, I don't know that there is such an ethical dilemma as you describe if it is within one system. Primarily because, as you yourself admit, the memories are not lost, they are just elsewhere than where you want them to be. But it is not your comfort that has to be considered, it is the comfort of the system itself. Some systems are more fragile than others and some depend more fully on the existance of one particular one than others do. I think a good analogy would be the phenomenon of denial or repression, which doesn't have to be a symptom of multiplicity - where someone forgets something *on purpose*, either consciously or subconsciously, because it is too difficult to deal with. The whole point of being a system is that those who are better able to deal with painful/distressing memories do so. This may not be a pleasant truth for your relationship, but if you understand multiples as well as you say you do, this should not come as any surprise to you.

I have had issues in relationships where someone was in love with one or two people within my system and those people became incapable of dealing with a relationship and either went to sleep or just stopped dealing. It wreaks havoc.

But the ultimate goal of any system is to keep existing by whatever means necessary, in as functional a manner as possible. You may not agree with the means, but you should agree with the goal.

Gira

[saturniakitty.livejournal.com]

I am confused by an apparent contradiction where you say that you only fall in love with the whole system and then go on to be upset about the loss of one within the system.

I was going to post asking about that, but you beat me to it to.

[kangetsuhime.livejournal.com]

If I were to really like empire biscuits, and then somebody removed the jam. Or the icing. Or most especially the biscuity bit. I would be fully justified in being unhappy and wanting my full empire biscuit back.

Sometimes liking the whole doesn't mean you don't have favourite bits, and doesn't mean that the loss of one part won't affect you.

[dour.livejournal.com]

On this one, at least, you're right that I wasn't clear enough. I wrote this to be as understandable by the non-multiples on my own journal as to anyone here. I'm perfectly aware, as I tried to convey near the end, that at the core this is all one mind, that at a certain clinical level she did this to herself.

That doesn't make it any less wrong, any less damaging. Emotionally, for me, it's the loss of a few people (remember, the "primary" wasn't the only one affected by this purge). For her, though, as a whole, for the system, it's a step backwards, away from healing, away from maturity. That's what really hurts me.

And I know, from your big long argument elsewhere, that you disagree. Not interested in discussing it. Just clarifying my own position.

[judiff]

i don't have like anything to say about the main piont of this but i wanted to ask you about thisbit of what you said:
I've had several close friends with multiple personality syndrome. Dissociative Identity Disorder, DID, is the chic tag. I have a knack for identifying them, getting along with them, drawing them out; I understand the mechanics of the phenomenon, often better than they do, and this often earns me the trust of the more guarded, deeper personae. They are, for obvious reasons, some of the most complex people I know; some of the most gratifying to converse and interact with. I tend to become close friends with multiples, because they stimulate my fascination with the workings of the mind, and I provide a person who they can talk to honestly and openly about their situation
ludy says it's prolly one of those things about not hearing the tone of voice in someones writing but to me it sounds wrong saying you understand your multiple friends better than they do themselves - like you are saying you are superior and they are like case studies or pets or something.
We've had problems with people who think our multiplicty is like "facinating" and end up being upset if we don't fit their theories and trying to control/re-shape our system. Hopefully that's not at all like what you are meaning but i wanted to check.

[dour.livejournal.com]

In one way you're right. To me, everyone—including myself—is a case study. I'm keenly interested in how minds work, and the similarities and differences between them. And because of this interest, and many years of experience, I've gained a lot of insights into human thought patterns; and for similar reasons of having spent so much time around multiples (several of them, with different types of systems), I've learned many of the ins and outs of that phenomenon as well. The differences say as much as the similarities, at a certain point (and yes, I've been blindsided by the differences on a few occasions). I long ago got over the idea that reunification or forced reconfiguration was a good goal.

This all doesn't mean that I'm cold and detached, or that the people I'm connected to are just guinea pigs to me. This is something that goes on in the background of my mind all the time, in every human interaction I have, and even when I'm sitting alone with my own thoughts; it's only observation, not "experimentation," and it's secondary to my normal interactions with people.

[zaimoni.livejournal.com]

I'm still thinking through my reaction about this (what you went through, not the EMT parallel). We're talking about something that I have the toolset to do to myself, so whatever my final opinion is will set bounds on my psychological self-engineering.

As for the EMT parallel: *fume*. My gut reactions to that hinge on whether the patient is sentient. I'd like to think that we're not so far gone that the public school system is starting to turn out nonsentient ex-humans.

It does what?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

They have to be taken shortly after the incident to be effective; they prevent the passage of a memory from short-term to long-term.

The window of opportunity on that is i so short (http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/S/short_term_memory.html), that if taken in pill form, by the time it takes effect, enough time would have passed that the drug will not be able to prevent the memory of taking the pill from transferring into long-term memory. An EMT or Medic getting there in time, taking care of vital concerns, and then administering the drug, and it taking effect, all happenning in that window, is, to put it kindly highly unlikely.

Do you have any sources on this?

--Me

Re: It does what?

[dour.livejournal.com]

I was oversimplifying on terms, because it was really the ethical question that mattered here and not the details of the drug. But I'm overjoyed that there was someone reading who caught me on it. :)

I am, quite frankly, too lazy to seek out a proper journal publication. But a quick search of my newsfeed archives got me this, (http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24441) the article which originally drew my attention to it. If you're interested, there's enough information there to search for whatever other details you might want.