(no subject)
Oct. 18th, 2004 11:15 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dour.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archivesAn 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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 02:37 pm (UTC)No excuses. Consent should have been obtained,a nd if it wasn't then I view this act as immoral and disgusting.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:13 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:15 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:18 pm (UTC)I do not know her system, so obviously I cannot say for certain. But such things have happened within our system and within other systems that I do know.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:21 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:27 pm (UTC)For me at least:
a) I work on a need to know basis. The one who holds the memories may not think the partner needs to know because it might cause more trouble and problems than it's worth.
b) The one who holds the memories may not be willing to hurt the partner's feelings by admitting that she needed and/or wanted and/or chose to have this done.
c) The one who holds the memories may not be willing to cast the character of the one whose memories were purged in a negative light and might be taking the blame themself.
d) The one whose memories were purged might be in such a fragile state (which the partner seemed to indicate in their post) that it needs to NOT be discussed in order to not cause further damage/distress.
There are many, many scenarios when those outside a system are not privileged with all of the information a system has, particularly if a front/protector feels that such information would do more harm than good.
At least in my experience.
Mandala, front for Gira&
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:28 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:31 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:36 pm (UTC)I am not very good on this subject. I personally loathe people created to 'care for' a system. I think the system members should stop being so pathetic and learn to care for themselves. I think the 'carer'/security blanket/sand in which to hide one's head in an ostrich like fashion has absolutely no right to make decisinns for the system, none what so ever.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:38 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:46 pm (UTC)It is not as if we type entirely in netspeak with terrible grammar and spelling. What a few errors have to do with the topic I have no idea.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 03:51 pm (UTC)There are enough non-multiples who think being multiple is pathetic that to hear one who presumably is multiple calling others who function differently than they do "pathetic" and talk about how they "loathe" them pisses me off.
It is not necessary to be offensive to state that you disagree, and why.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:00 pm (UTC)In my opinion caring alters should not exist. Perhaps in the short term they serve a purpose, protecting the body while the mind adjusts. But the mind SHOULD adjust, and the carer should no long be a carer, but just another alter, with the same rights and privaliges of any of them.
In a sense it did have relevance. More so than my typing errors. As I said, you seemed to be saying that a carer should have more rights than any other person, alter or singleton.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:08 pm (UTC)As front, it is ultimately up to me to ensure the survival of this system - or lack thereof. As such, I am given full authority to act in whatever manner I deem necessary, to whatever extent I deem necessary, even to the exclusion of all other opinions, should the survival of the system be in jeopardy - or should further fragmentation be imminent.
Excuse? No. Purpose? Yes.
When those who have been so broken have to live with so much pain on a day to day level that just coping takes more than we collectively and cooperatively have; when the broken ones seriously outnumber those who are not broken, someone has to take responsibility for all major decisions which affect the entire system. Not because those who are broken don't take responsibility for themselves, but because they have a job to do too. They carry the pain.
In a perfect world, every member of a system would have equal responsibility. In a trauma induced system, for many it is not only impractical, but impossible. Not because anyone shirks their duty, but because for some their duty does not entail making decisions.
To put them down because their duties do not entail making overall decisions, or to put me down because my reponsibilities extend, in effect, to all decisions, is quite frankly bullshit of the highest order.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:14 pm (UTC)But I can't. I have gone through a lot in my life. More than anybody should have to. But I got back up and I took care of myself.
Like I said. In the short term I accept that for some, having a carer is a solution. But people have to get over their pain. Not carry it. Deal with it. Get over it. Whether it takes days or years. Sitting in their little system with a big shiny protector, or somebody else hiding the pain, I'm sure that's all very easy and I wish I'd had that option. But in the long run it's the easy way out, a coward's way out. It's healthier if they just learn to deal with it and all splits, all fragments, become happier more functional people.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:18 pm (UTC)I am lucky to get an hour to myself at the end of a day and that hour is spent resting to get back up and do it all again.
It's easy to call someone else a coward if you haven't lived in their shoes.
It's also fucked up and discriminatory.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:27 pm (UTC)I appreciate that things like this do take time. That does not mean they should not happen. A system can either continue struggling as you seem to, or they can accept that they have to try and 'mend'. At the end of it, things may not be perfect but perhaps they will be happier.
I had to deal with my problems myself. I had nobody to carry my pain. Nobody to erase my memories. I had nobody to protect me. To me, having a system as you do seems very much the easy option. I'm sure you can probably understand where I am coming from.
If I have been harsh, I apologise. It is my nature though I am trying to change it, and to put it bluntly I am an absolute fucking wreck right now. I'm only just holding myself together. You're lucky I didn't go hysterical on you.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:36 pm (UTC)Mending looks different to everyone and at the end of the day, in my opinion, it doesn't matter *how* a system works, it matters that it works. You should be respectful of other people's processes, even if you strongly disagree.
It only matters that whether many or one are making the decisions, that everyone in the *system* is comfortable with that - no matter how it looks to outsiders.
Harsh? No... but you could certainly use a dose of appreciation for diversity and the complexity which many people have to deal with and approach their everyday lives.
"Just get over it" is something I expect to hear from non-multiples. It is not something I expect to hear from those within my "community". Everyone deals with things differently, in their own time and way, and I don't know who appointed you judge and executioner to decide which is the "correct" and "best" way to be multiple.
I'm sorry, but for me this discussion (if it ever was a discussion) is over.
Bagheera Elizabeth
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:45 pm (UTC)You may not have noticed but in this 'discussion' I continually stated that it would more than likely be better for a system if everybody in it was happy. You seem to find that in some way insulting. That I feel system members should all be able to get on with their lives without a burden of pain.
I also continually said that how a system works to cope with their pain is not an issue as long as they don't wallow in it, as long as they try to heal. Where is the point in wallowing in it. It only serves to hurt the members of your system.
Whoever has to deal with the pain so that you don't have to... This makes me wonder who is really the cruel one out of the two of us. Me for being judgemental of people like you, or people like you for suggesting alters should be used like tools no matter how it hurts them.
I didn't realise that people would react so violently to the concept of actually healing ALL members of the system, or at the very least trying to. I thought that concept might have been embraced in a community where all alters are considered equals. I suppose I was wrong.
Please pass my condolences on to whatever system members are suffering in your head. I know how they feel.
Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:52 pm (UTC)Re: I dissagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:48 pm (UTC)Implications are not dangerous when the reader is experienced enough to correctly extract them, and especially when the writer is aware of them as well and takes care not to lead them in the wrong direction. This is one of those communication skills that you learn if you don't hide from knowledge.
Meanwhile, you delved into suspicion, which is hardly a more reasonable pursuit, being based on utter lack of knowledge rather than on bits and pieces. Allow me to close the gaps, for
If this were voluntary on both ends, I wouldn't have said it felt like murder. The missing memories came to light initially because she asked me how we met, then said there was a whole bunch she couldn't remember, and it worried her. Those last three words are all that matter.
I never once said I didn't know the one who did it, I said he tends to stay buried more deeply; I don't know him as well as others, but I know his motivations and his function and I've spoken with him on multiple occasions. Remember how I said he agreed to work with me?
Done.
Re: I disagree with you.
Date: 2004-10-19 09:32 pm (UTC)Why assume that just because a person in a system came to be as a result of trauma or abuse, it means they're necessarily different from people who came to be in other ways and can't be expected to handle the same responsibilities? Even if someone started out as a classic 'fragment' type of person, this doesn't put a permanent cap on their ability to expand, develop a more complex self, and learn and take on responsibilities they may once have been incapable of. Not all trauma-induced systems fit the profile you describe.
\m/
Date: 2004-10-21 08:04 pm (UTC)--Me