Use of memory-blunters at the time of traumatic events could interfere with the normal psychic work and adaptive value of emotionally charged memory....Thus, by blunting the emotional impact of events, beta-blockers or their successors would concomitantly weaken our recollection of the traumatic events we have just experienced. Yet often it is important in the after of such events that at least someone remember them clearly. For legal reasons, to say nothing of deeper social and personal ones, the wisdom of routinely interfering with the memories of traumatic survivors and witnesses is highly questionable.8
Many neuroscientists and neuroethicists objected to the perspective of the Bioethics Council as being too puritanical and its position overly pessimistic:
Whereas memory dampening has its drawbacks, such may be the price we pay in order to heal immense suffering. In some contexts, there may be steps that ought to be taken to preserve valuable factual or emotional information contained in memory, even when we must delay or otherwise impose limits on access to memory dampening. None of these concerns, however, even if they find empirical support, are strong enough to justify brushed restrictions on memory dampening.9
The proponents of the 2 views propose and oppose the contrarian position on issues both philosophical and practical, such as the function of traumatic experience in personal growth; how the preservation of memory is related to the integrity of the person and authenticity of the life lived; how blunting of memories of especially combat trauma may normalize our reactions to suffering and evil; and most important for this Veterans Day essay, whether remembering is an ethical duty and if so whose is it to discharge, the individual, his family, community, or country.
More pragmatic, there would be a need to refine our understanding of the risk factors for chronic and disabling PTSD; to determine when in the course of the trauma experience to pharmacologically interfere with memory and to what degree and scope; how to protect the autonomy of the service member to consent or to refuse the procedure within the recognized confines of military ethics; and most important for this essay, how to prevent governments, corporations, or any other entity from exploiting neurobiologic discoveries for power or profit.
Elie Wiesel is an important modern prophet of the critical role of memory in the survival of civilization. His prophecy is rooted in the incomprehensible anguish and horror he personally and communally witnessed in the Holocaust. He suggests in this editorial’s epigraph that there are deep and profound issues to be pondered about memory and its inextricable link to suffering. Meditations offer thoughts, not answers, and I encourage readers to spend a few minutes considering the solemn ones presented here this Veterans Day.
