Miracle pills

[4gold]

I saw this on 60 minutes.

It's a pill lessens the pain of bad memories.

Does anyone think this is a good thing?

[Confused]

I saw this on 60 minutes.

It's a pill lessens the pain of bad memories.

Does anyone think this is a good thing?

I have mixed opinion of this. I think that it is good in that if it can dull the trauma a person, but I would hold out on side effects and lasting effects. Study is still new, but if it came out to be as they portray it, I think it would be great.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What would make it a bad thing?

[Confused]

What would make it a bad thing?

The same things that make it a bad pill for what we currently use if for. Side effects: hypotension, renal insufficiency, etc.... What would be the side effects if a woman took it when she was 2 weeks pregnant? Too early to detect by medicine, but how would it effect the fetus? Then there is determining who it would be appropriate to give it to. What consitutes a traumatic experience? What parameters says that this event will lead to PTSD and this wont. Many soldiers from the Gulf War experienced PTSD, but many didn't. Then there is the fact that this would be an unlabeled use for the medication, so most insurance companies won't approve it's useage. It would be an out of pocket expense. Should the pill be all required, or will counseling still be needed? Any time we mess with the brain we are messing with something we really know little about. Advances in neuroscience have been phenomenal, but ask any neurologist or neurosurgeon and they will tell you that it is a guessing game how the outcome will be. A perfect candidate can experience fatal effects whereas a less than ideal candidate may get the best results. We just don't know.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

That argument could just as well be used against any form of medication.


But what makes this medication bad in particular?


If we have the technology available to improve people's lives, should it not be used? If the side-effects are grave enough so as to abolish any merit in taking the medication in the first place, then we will know soon enough. But is this reason enough to refrain from implementing such technology in the first place? What if doctors had been too cautious to try out penecillin on soldiers during WW1?

[Confused]

That argument could just as well be used against any form of medication.


But what makes this medication bad in particular?


If we have the technology available to improve people's lives, should it not be used? If the side-effects are grave enough so as to abolish any merit in taking the medication in the first place, then we will know soon enough. But is this reason enough to refrain from implementing such technology in the first place? What if doctors had been too cautious to try out penecillin on soldiers during WW1?

That is why I said in my first post that I have mixed opinions. Once the study is actually complete, and has been verified, medicine uses the standard of "does the benefits outweigh the risks" if the answer is yes, then we feel comfortable going forward with a treatment. However, the study ins't complete. We don't know the long term effects. Just like mental institutions use ECT (electroconvulsive therapy, AKA shock therapy) they have found mixed results. For some, it helps there depression, for some it doesn't. For some it makes it worse. For some it is temporary relief, for some it is permanent. Until the study is completed and we know the side effects, I remain reserved in any kind of "miracle pill".

[Dion]

I wonder if 4gold was really thinking about the physical side effects of such a drug as opposed to the philosophical effects. The possible physical side effects I think we can take for granted as we would for any drug. The real question 4gold poses is, I think, what would be the philosophical, psychological and societal effects of such a drug.

I would be very worried by the widespread use of this drug. To take an extreme example; if we were to commit murder, would it be a good thing if we knew in advance that we could suppress the pangs of guilt that (I hope) we would subsequently feel? That our conscience would not prohibit us from such an act?

Is coping with the general traumas that we all experience in life, the death of a loved one for example, not part of what makes us human? Would it be a good thing to live on a shallow level where these deep and painful feelings do not trouble us? Is not our experience of the vicissitudes of life precisely what makes us human, forms our character, for good or ill, and so, hopefully, allows us to develop empathy and compassion with other people?

[Confused]

I wonder if 4gold was really thinking about the physical side effects of such a drug as opposed to the philosophical effects. The possible physical side effects I think we can take for granted as we would for any drug. The real question 4gold poses is, I think, what would be the philosophical, psychological and societal effects of such a drug.

I would be very worried by the widespread use of this drug. To take an extreme example; if we were to commit murder, would it be a good thing if we knew in advance that we could suppress the pangs of guilt that (I hope) we would subsequently feel? That our conscience would not prohibit us from such an act?

Is coping with the general traumas that we all experience in life, the death of a loved one for example, not part of what makes us human? Would it be a good thing to live on a shallow level where these deep and painful feelings do not trouble us? Is not our experience of the vicissitudes of life precisely what makes us human, forms our character, for good or ill, and so, hopefully, allows us to develop empathy and compassion with other people?

4Gold didn't comment on the side effects, I did. Since I work in medicine, I meant the physical side effects initally as I explained. Since we currently use the drug, for cardiac pt, we know the physical side effects, but these are lower doses than what is being used in the study, so I withhold my opinion until the study is complete. Once the safety and efficacy has been validated, then the issue would fall to the APA for evaluation as opposed to the AMA. I don't know of any philisophical indications for interpreting this medication at all. Only medical and psychological. I thing applying it to murderers may be a bit overkill. But that may be an issue addressed after the study has actually been completed.

On a side note, the medication requires a prescription currently. I don't see how that would change regardless of the results of the study. So widespread abuse I don't think would be such an issue.

[Dion]

4Gold didn't comment on the side effects, I did. Since I work in medicine, I meant the physical side effects initally as I explained. Since we currently use the drug, for cardiac pt, we know the physical side effects, but these are lower doses than what is being used in the study, so I withhold my opinion until the study is complete. Once the safety and efficacy has been validated, then the issue would fall to the APA for evaluation as opposed to the AMA. I don't know of any philisophical indications for interpreting this medication at all. Only medical and psychological. I thing applying it to murderers may be a bit overkill. But that may be an issue addressed after the study has actually been completed.

On a side note, the medication requires a prescription currently. I don't see how that would change regardless of the results of the study. So widespread abuse I don't think would be such an issue.

Yes, I was addressing your comments and saying, please forgive me for my bluntness, that I thought they were irrelevant to the central point which I thought 4gold was trying to make. I feel that you are approaching the issue from a rather narrow, technical viewpoint.

I am not an American and I don't know what the 'APA' or the 'AMA' are, but unless they are bodies concerned primarily with philosophy or ethics I doubt if they are really relevant to the current discussion.

I did say that murder was an extreme case, which I used only to illustrate the possible downsides of such a drug.

I am sure that doctors will do their best to prescribe the drug wisely, but I remain concerned about the implications of something that appears to be emotionally akin to a chemical pre-frontal lobotomy. I accept, of course, that there may be individual cases where the use of this drug would be beneficial, but should the use of the drug in even these cases be something that we applaud wholeheartedly or something that we regretfully acquiesce to?

[Confused]

4Gold didn't comment on the side effects, I did. Since I work in medicine, I meant the physical side effects initally as I explained. Since we currently use the drug, for cardiac pt, we know the physical side effects, but these are lower doses than what is being used in the study, so I withhold my opinion until the study is complete. Once the safety and efficacy has been validated, then the issue would fall to the APA for evaluation as opposed to the AMA. I don't know of any philisophical indications for interpreting this medication at all. Only medical and psychological. I thing applying it to murderers may be a bit overkill. But that may be an issue addressed after the study has actually been completed.

On a side note, the medication requires a prescription currently. I don't see how that would change regardless of the results of the study. So widespread abuse I don't think would be such an issue.

Yes, I was addressing your comments and saying, please forgive me for my bluntness, that I thought they were irrelevant to the central point which I thought 4gold was trying to make. I feel that you are approaching the issue from a rather narrow, technical viewpoint.

I am not an American and I don't know what the 'APA' or the 'AMA' are, but unless they are bodies concerned primarily with philosophy or ethics I doubt if they are really relevant to the current discussion.

I did say that murder was an extreme case, which I used only to illustrate the possible downsides of such a drug.

I am sure that doctors will do their best to prescribe the drug wisely, but I remain concerned about the implications of something that appears to be emotionally akin to a chemical pre-frontal lobotomy. I accept, of course, that there may be individual cases where the use of this drug would be beneficial, but should the use of the drug in these cases be something that we applaud wholeheartedly or something that we regretfully acquiesce to?

AMA: American Medical Association
APA: American Psychiatric Association.

I think we agree, we are just wording it differently. I see the psychological implications and am not sure that messing with the brain to make an exprience less traumatic is the best idea.

My approach as stated was reserved at this time. Since the study is still in the early phases, we cannot predict the outcome. If that is what you consider narrow, then so be it.