Erasing Details Of Bad Memories 135
An anonymous reader writes "People can be trained to forget specific details associated with bad memories, according to breakthrough findings that may lead the way for the development of new depression and post-traumatic stress disorder therapies. New study (abstract), published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, reveals that individuals can be taught to forget personal feelings associated with an emotional memory without erasing the memory of the actual event."
Why bother with roofies anymore? (Score:2, Insightful)
Rohypnol: that's soooo 2001.
Re: (Score:1)
How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
Each prayer accepted and each wish resigned.
Slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
What the hell's that?
I AM NOT QUAID!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
AHHRHRHHRHAHGHGHGHGAHGHGHGHG
Midazolam (Score:4, Informative)
The drug Midazolam [wikipedia.org] (trade name Versed) is already used to induce anterograde amnesia before certain unpleasant medical procedures. This is used where the effects of an anesthetic are undesirable or impossible.
Sometimes this causes problems - it is often abused by the health care industry to sometimes horrific results. In the worst cases, people are put through what can only be called torture under the assumption that the drug will block their memories of the event, and even though their conscious memories of it are gone later, they suffer PTSD type symptoms after the fact. The tales of people who've had bad experiences in that regard are bone chilling. This isn't universal of course, and used judiciously the drug has beneficial uses. But it is not always used wisely.
Also, there is some evidence it can cause permanent or semi-permanent memory impairment in the elderly, as it interferes with the mechanisms of memory formation.
Re:Midazolam (Score:5, Interesting)
under the assumption that the drug will block their memories of the event, and even though their conscious memories of it are gone later, they suffer PTSD type symptoms after the fact.
This sounds like wildly incompetent malpractice then. Even if you're going to get 'routine' major surgery with general anaesthetic you should insist on a spinal block for pain. The anaesthetic blocks out frontal lobe consciousness and some memory formation, but other parts of the brain are going, "holy fuck, I'm being sawn in half!" which leads to major brain trauma and long-lasting problems. Ever know somebody who came out of surgery 'changed'?
Docs at Walter Reed have been on the forefront for a while, because screwed up soldiers are expensive. But regardless of their cost cutting motivations, this should be well known in anaesthesia by now...
Re: (Score:2)
"This sounds like wildly incompetent malpractice then"
And you're speaking from what authority? Let me see your MD. I had to have some pretty bad surgery (I'm a huge chunk of titanium on the right side of my skeleton) and I've got some problems emotionally from that. This is fairly typical, speaking among other patients that underwent similar trauma surgeries.
You ever have to have MAJOR surgery after being dead, TWICE?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't depend on me, I've just related what I've read in articles. I cited the authority already - call the docs at Walter Reed who study this if you need to see an MD degree.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you're insisting on a particular legal standard. I'm talking about common usage and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Here's the general definition:
If part of a procedure is skipped that is known to prevent harm, I don't know what else you'd call it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a known part of a procedure when the nervous system still isn't fully known?
We only just RECENTLY obtained a live scan of what happens to your brain when you go under general anesthesia. We're still figuring out the implications.
Using the best practice available at the time != malpractice.
baiting the troll? (Score:1)
I'd imagine that such pedantry, mixed with anger and a great deal of physical scar tissue makes you quite a lonely man. I am overwhelmed by your fervor over an opinion of impression on an open forum. Such a display drove me to question your mental state, for it certainly isn't well adjusted.
You take pride in your hardship, though it was difficult on you. It proves something to you or about you. Anyone that takes away from that in part or whole is a threat to your already shattered emotional state. And thus
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd imagine that such pedantry, mixed with anger and a great deal of physical scar tissue makes you quite a lonely man."
check it out, another armchair psychiatrist.
I'm married, fool. Not lonely at all.
"You take pride in your hardship, though it was difficult on you. It proves something to you or about you. Anyone that takes away from that in part or whole is a threat to your already shattered emotional state. And thus you attack."
No, armchair fool, I defend the integrity of a profession from laypeople that
Re: (Score:2)
"So only someone with a degree can possibly have a valid opinion on whether wrong was done ?"
When it comes to medicine, yes, which is why we have laws preventing any sort of medical claims or advice without license.
"That's bullshit, and it is so arrogant that it boggles the mind."
Okay, I'm throwing you into a room with a patient that needs an immediate brain operation. Have at it.
"I hope you get terminal cancer soon"
Thankfully, I've got a genetic disorder that makes me rather unsusceptible to cancer. As a r
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Docs at Walter Reed have been on the forefront for a while, because screwed up soldiers are expensive."
And the above doctors have had stunning success, right ?
That must be why the US has lost more soldiers to suicide than to enemy action.
Re: (Score:1)
That must be why the US has lost more soldiers to suicide than to enemy action.
Really? I didn't know that. Could you please provide some references?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
News you won't find on CNN or Faux.
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't necessarily translate to a bad scenario. Suppose because of their effectiveness zero casualties were the result of combat, but that soldiers were as likely as members of the general public to commit suicide. I'm not saying that's the case, but a higher suicide than casualty rate could possibly be taken to be "a good thing."
Re:Midazolam (Score:4, Insightful)
That article quotes a suicide rate of 468, from an armed forces contingent of 1.5M or 3M if you include reservists (which the 468 figure does include). That means that 0.015% of the US military commits suicide, which puts them at around 15 times the national average. That doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship. Several reasons come to mind immediately why they would be expected to have a higher suicide rate than the general population:
Most people in the USA who commit suicide do so with a firearm (around 60%). This is one of the easiest ways of killing yourself because it lets you do it quickly - giving you less time to reconsider - and is believed by most who do so to be a painless way out. At the very least it's quick.
The second reason is that a lot of army recruitment material talks about giving people a purpose or direction in life. As such, I'd expect a significant percentage of people who feel they have nothing to live for to join up (as is a recurring theme in fiction) and, if the army then fails to provide them with something that they consider to be a worthwhile purpose for suicide to seem like an attractive alternative.
Finally, there's the obvious correlation between high-stress occupations and suicide...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the suicide is still caused by the time in the military that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if you're going to get 'routine' major surgery with general anaesthetic you should insist on a spinal block for pain. The anaesthetic blocks out frontal lobe consciousness and some memory formation, but other parts of the brain are going, "holy fuck, I'm being sawn in half!" which leads to major brain trauma and long-lasting problems.
Fortunately for those of us who've undergone major leg surgery with general anesthetic, I don't think there's much evidence out there of the occurrence of "major brain trauma and long-lasting problems" from not having also had a spinal block. I'd be interested to read any actual evidence you can provide to support your statement.
Re: (Score:2)
additionally, spinal blocks are difficult and don't always work so well. the anaesthetists are fixated about spinal health, for obvious reasons. they're shooting blind for a tiny area, and if they fuck up, they fuck you up.
my wife's spinal block wasn't so pretty - it came out patchy, there was still feeling in blotches well below the block. when they turned the dosage up, the block went so high it was in danger of shutting her breathing down.
Re:Midazolam (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds to me that you have been told about a very common method for dealing with pain after joint replacement and assumed that it was a generally good plan for most anesthetics. It's not. Here's why.
That "spinal for pain" is - when we're talking about joint replacements - usually 200 micrograms of morphine. It's not a "spinal anesthetic", which would be a local anesthetic agent like bupivacaine or lidocaine injected into the fluid around the spinal cord in order to make someone surgically numb; instead, it's there to work on the receptors in the spinal cord that prevent pain from being transmitted upward. As a downside, it does cause itching in the majority of people. You can't give them to people who are taking blood thinners (there's a risk of a hematoma developing in the epidural space and causing paralysis if it's not noticed and corrected in time). You can't use it for outpatients, because it does carry a risk of respiratory depression. Patients who get it can't have a patient-controlled-analgesia (the press-a-button-for-morphine pump) for the first 12-24 hours.
For those who are having arm/shoulder or foot/ankle surgery, a peripheral nerve block is by far the superior choice, but there are certain cases where it can't be used, and others where the risk-benefit balance means it's not worthwhile. In the military, they often leave catheters in place to pump local anesthetic into the peripheral nerve block for a couple of days, but they have the benefit of people who are under regulations and meet certain minimum standards. In private practice, most insurance companies won't pay for one, and I don't trust most people to use them correctly even if they were paid for - you can really, really mess someone up with one if it's not managed correctly, and my experience with epidurals (which are the most common place in which continuous infusions of local anesthetics are used) has shown me clearly that a large portion of people just don't understand the idea of not ever moving or disturbing the place where the catheter enters the skin.
BTW, most people who come out of surgery "changed" are those who have been on cardiopulmonary bypass. It's a known risk.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
During one of my dad's heart surgeries, they kept him semi-conscious with Versed. He curses the person running the anesthesia to this day for not giving him enough Versed since he remembers much of the procedure, including the doctors discussing how much energy to use to shock his heart out of fibrillation.
That said, I wonder if using too little Versed is sometimes the culprit in the PTSD type symptoms you're discussing (which my dad has, for that procedure and other reasons).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I gave the video 11 minutes and never got past the "crazy shit" stage. He seems to ramble from one irrelevant line of thought to the next while only rarely getting to a point that's somewhere between mildly insightful and rather trivial (eg. people tend to feel the emotions they see in others, as when a crowd gets fired up by a frontman; he gave no example, I supplied this one). By far his most important asset as a speaker is his extremely calm, almost otherworldly delivery. It dresses up his lackluster con
Re: (Score:1)
Holy Crap!
I lost an entire week last year (post-op) because of Versed. In defense of my surgeon (and prescribing doctor), I now believe that it is a GOOD THING that I can't remember any details.
I was initially upset about the "loss", but now feel indebted to my doctor. The time I "lost" was well worth not having to remember what transpired. I came to this conclusion after discussing the events with my spouse, other family members, and hospital staff.
I don't *think* I have any PTSD from the experience.
Midazolam : Been there done that. (Score:3)
Had it for a follow-up orthopedic surgery where they had to ask me how it feels (beyond just it hurts). Don't remember it.
These bad memories can be replaced with good ones (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And the weekly chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams!!!!
Re:These bad memories can be replaced with good on (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how much it scares the shit out of anyone living with me when I wake up screaming, even after the fourth or fifth time?
So I'm not a veteran and I wasn't abused or anything like that, but it doesn't change when my ex-father attacks me and starts breaking every bone in my body and I wake up screaming. The only reason my subconscious won't let go is because I actually trusted and thought I loved that fundamentalist, racist, delusional, conspiracy-theory-loving piece of crap for 18 years, and then he broke that trust.
Veterans need this. You think Goatse or Two Girls One Cup can't be unseen?
I just wake up screaming every now and then if I haven't had my dose of b33r after a couple days. It's nothing more than that.
I don't even know what real post traumatic stress syndrome is like. I've never seen someone killed, and I've never had to kill someone or be killed myself.
That was abuse. (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm not a veteran and I wasn't abused or anything like that, but it doesn't change when my ex-father attacks me and starts breaking every bone in my body and I wake up screaming.
That was abuse - very severe physical abuse.
It's quite smart of you to not want to base your identity on being a victim and wallowing in your past, but then again, I don't think you shouldn't be afraid to call it for what it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more to me like he's describing events in a dream, not actual events in his past. That's not to say his ex-father didn't at one point beat him up, the rest of the post suggests that may have happened, but he wasn't suffering daily physical as I understand it.
skeptical (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it took some time to figure out. Instead of the obviously un-workable, they have you come up with an emotionally charged (for you) word that makes you think of pink elephants and then they pair that with an emotionally neutral word.
A little worried about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The first thing to be concerned with is that we no longer call it "shell shock". That's what people used to call it. But, gosh, that just sounds so harsh and brutal. It's far more comfortable (especially for those of us who don't experience it) to call it something like "post traumatic stress disorder". See, that way it sounds more like something you get from working hard on a project with a quickly approaching deadline that you can prescribe squeezing a stress-ball and taking long walks through a garden to
PTSD is very treatable (Score:2)
EMDR has already shown efficacy for PTSD and at least one study has strongly implied EFT works too.
A colleague of mine, Andrew Austin, teaches an expanded model of EMDR called IEFT. He found something very interesting: that flashbacks were not to moments where eg the sufferer saw their friend die but rather to a moment where they felt responsible, where they wish they'd made a different choice. Typically, this was on an irrational basis where the eg a different choice would probably have made no differen
Re: (Score:2)
Memory sickness (Score:2, Interesting)
"The Khmer Rouge invented new terms. People were told to "forge" (lot dam) a new revolutionary character, that they were the "instruments" (; opokar) of the ruling body known as "Angkar" (, "The Organization"), and that nostalgia for pre-revolutionary times (chheu satek arom, or "memory sickness") could result in execution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Language_reforms
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
.. also Total Recall.
Isn't this more like the exact opposite of those stories? The characters in those stories seemed to recall feelings of the events but had no other memory. TFA talks about erasing the bad emotions associated with past events, leaving the memory of the event itself intact.
Wool (Score:2)
This sounds very much like the beginning of the saga in Hugh Howie's Wool/Silo [amzn.to] series...
(slight spoilers ahead) ...humanity develops drugs that, in combination with stressful events, allow memories to be suppressed. Unpleasantness follows...
Risking apathy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone who worked hard in middle school to get rid of all his emotions (due to bullying, depression, worthlessness, etc...) I wouldn't recommend it. Everything is so-so for me. Should I pick this activity over that one? I can't say. One is never better than the other. Why do you want to try XXXX? Because I do... I can't give a reason, I can't say that I enjoy it because I don't. I can't say that I don't want to do that other activity because I don't like it, because I don't. It's difficult to
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get rid of emotions that way. You're undoubtedly suppressing them, which isn't as bad as it sounds.
What I'm saying (as a psychotherapist of 16 years) is that you have the opportunity to learn to feel them again as well as resolve and thereby 'delete' the negative ones.
Just an option. And yeah, school sucks.
Both good for the individual & bad for society (Score:5, Insightful)
PTSD is reassuring for me in a way - if humans were truly naturally murderous beasts, as some would like to insist, PTSD would be very rare or non-existant. But it isn't, and we're not built for heinous acts - more bonobo than chimp, as it were.
The trick is, if PTSD is 'curable' then there are even fewer consequences for sending in men to do terrible things to other people. We're already learning that the lower the domestic cost of war is, the more politicians engage in it. I don't want veterans to suffer, but this is all headed in the wrong direction.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rofl fantastic. You're opposed to medicine because it will make people more willing to fight as well, right?
Violence is morally neutral. Like all tools, it is how you use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Rofl fantastic. You're opposed to medicine because it will make people more willing to fight as well, right?
If you look up at the subject line, it says that it can be both good for the individual and bad for society. That's a point of moral ambiguity, not opposition.
Violence is morally neutral. Like all tools, it is how you use it.
Right, which is why I wrote that it's unfortunate that it's being used to make war more palatable.
Re: (Score:2)
War is morally neutral too- again, like violence, you can have just or unjust wars. If you are a pacifist, say so, but it doesn't excuse being opposed to medicine because it will ease the suffering of individuals that you personally don't approve of.
I mean, do you fucking think for ONE GODDAMNED SECOND that the people in charge are like "well, no, we don't want to go to war, because our soldiers may experience PTSD". You think that's holding them back? It's not like THEY are the ones to make that sacrif
Re: (Score:3)
it doesn't excuse being opposed to medicine
Yeah, that's the second time you've tried that. I don't think anybody at home is going to be confused by conflating the two issues. In case you really don't get it I'll try again: it can't be the right thing to do to treat the individual, but it's still bad for society.
mean, do you fucking think for ONE GODDAMNED SECOND that the people in charge are like "well, no, we don't want to go to war, because our soldiers may experience PTSD".
There are absolutely politi
Re: (Score:2)
it can't be the right thing to do to treat the individual, but it's still bad for society.
err ... sloppy editing/proofreading. Sorry 'bout that. Once more:
it can be the right thing to do to treat the individual, but also still bad for society.
there, almost valid English.
Re: (Score:1)
Abolition of suffering is always moral.
Not necessarily. As a trivial case, think of allowing children to reap the natural results of their actions. Removing the suffering in the short term can be extremely harmful to someone in the long term. So some context is needed. Often well-meaning removal of short-term suffering can make things much worse over the longer term. The last 20 years or so of child-rearing theories have resulted in a lot of self-centered brats and parents pandering to 3 year old tyrants. That is most certainly NOT going to serv
Re: (Score:3)
Hey there soldier! Worried about PTSD? Afraid your conscience may interfere with your patriotic duty? No need to worry! With our new treatment you'll never have to worry about flashbacks, or fear that you may have to turn whistleblower. War-crimes trials? No fear. We'll make sure you will always be the most reliable and entirely truthful un-witness.
Re: (Score:1)
PTSD doesn't only apply to soldiers. It can occur after any traumatic event, whether the patient is an auto accident or a victim of a violent crime. In a previous story, doctors and therapists are able to, on a case by case basis, remove the emotional content of the memory of the traumatic event and lessen the crippling psychological symptoms. This is a good thing, whether or not it applies to soldiers and war.
Re:Both good for the individual & bad for soci (Score:4, Interesting)
PTSD is reassuring for me in a way - if humans were truly naturally murderous beasts, as some would like to insist, PTSD would be very rare or non-existant.
Read On Killing [amazon.com]. Only psychopaths can kill without emotional consequences. People are naturally opposed to killing when it comes to dealing with members of the same species. Men can hunt and kill a deer. That's instinct. When confronting other humans, the instinct is to posture or submit. Same applies to most other mammals.
Re: (Score:2)
Read On Killing
Thanks. Just added it to my list.
Re: (Score:1)
Only psychopaths can kill without emotional consequences.
Are you still a psychopath if you don't feel anything for killing someone who threatened your life, as I had to?
Yes.
What if you're against killing except in self-defense, still feel empathy for those who don't threaten your life, but don't feel empathy for those who do threaten your life?
Yup.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, this is just evil. If you're opposed to a particular war, deal with that in the voting booth, and accept that sometimes your side is going to lose. Don't take it out on soldiers with PTSD, who are fairly powerless in this situation. Do you also think there's a moral problem with the use of medicine to heal soldiers' physical wounds, because a higher body count would help build opposition to a war you disagree with? I'm sorry, that's unpatriotic and evil.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you're opposed to a particular war, deal with that in the voting booth,
That reminds me of that old cliche:
The 5 boxes of liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey know what worked for me? (Score:2)
Lot's of booze. Not really kidding, of course the PTSD flashbacks are a bitch at times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why the armies of the world prefer to field the youngest soldiers to the harshest conditions of the front line. This has been true for all history. Give a 16, 18, or 20 year-old a gun and tell him he's a hero, and he will charge against all hell and fury if you tell him to. Armies that don't care about civil rights, the Geneva Convention, or public opinion prefer even younger soldiers. After a little more time to mature, men in their 30's and 40's tend to be much less enthusiastic about
Goodbye Second Marriage... (Score:2)
and third, and fourth, and...
--Zsa Zsa & Liz
Heh. (Score:2)
Bet Taco'd be happy if I forgot: "The Lone Gunman are Dead."
Re: (Score:2)
Scientology is big on confronting painful memories, instead of repressing them or forgetting about them as advocated in this article. That's what a "clear" is, someone who has confronted all his painful memories ("engrams") and is no longer affected by them.
Problem arises when someone confronts (or "runs") his painful memories, and he doesn't get any better. They have an answer for this too -- they look for an "earlier similar" incident and run that. The theory is that a later incident will lock on top of a
Re: (Score:2)
an online survey. the "age" field is very comprehensive on this point.
Maybe for some people... (Score:1)
Sexual Assault Victims (Score:1)
My wife has severe PTSD due to being sexually assaulted by a doctor as a child, and is constantly trying to find better ways to cope and heal now that she's an adult. There are a LOT of victims (as shown yet again today by Joe Pa's trial) that could benefit from therapy like this if it could be effective for even severe trauma like that. Wired had an article about the idea of a pill [wired.com] to help you forget, but this article appears to be more just about therapy than medicine. Unfortunately it also says it was do
Books (Score:1)
Not to turn this into a book review, but I just started reading the sequel to the Wool series of books by Hugh Howey called First Shift - Legacy, and the concept of purposefully forgetting things is pretty central to the book. Very good reads, both of them.
This is too weird (Score:3)
I do not remember anything bad that happened to me.
I can be reminded, and when I am, I remember them in sufficient detail, but in general, I just plain don't.
One of the the greatest blessings of my existence.
This is new? (Score:1)
Alcohol (Score:4, Informative)
Meanwhile, this is really nothing new: Alcoholics figured it out thousands of years ago. Mastadon trample your kids? The chieftan fucking your wo-man? The bastards in Sales pissing you off? Great, have a fucking drink.
Forgetting Bad Memories (Score:2)
So, that's what the GOP has been putting into the water.
my anecdotal experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To echo some of what the other guy said, you've been through a truly horrible experience and I'm genuinely sorry about that. You probably feel responsible even though anyone would do the same in your position.
It's not wrong to mostly trust people you know. This kind of thing happens rarely.
With the right kind of help, you can end some of these symptoms. I'd treat you and your wife for free if you're able to get to England.
Congratulations for putting them behind bars.
Reminds me of Reiki (Score:2)
Reminds me a bit of Reiki practices (cultish quack medicine some relatives are caught up in). They word it in pseudo-scientific crap, but trying to change the emotional baggage associated with memories seems to be an important part of Reiki (but again, I only have tangential experience).
Breakthrough Findings? (Score:2)
Therapists have been doing this Neuro-Linguistic Programming for decades at this point.
What is old is new again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They've been making that drug for at least five thousand years. It's called "alcohol". (Works on guys, too!)