Memory holes as a medical treatment

The President's Council on Bioethics has been critical, in the past, of some ongoing research in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with a drug known as propranolol.

PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that some people suffer after experiencing an extremely traumatic event, such as being raped or abused, witnessing the death of a friend or loved one, or surviving a natural disaster. Individuals with PTSD suffer from a variety of symptoms including a persistent upsetting and invasive memory of the event and experience physiological arousal (such as a racing pulse) when they remember that event.

The controversy of using propranolol as a potential treatment revolves around the way propranolol is expected to combat PTSD. Propranolol is theorized to weaken the traumatic memory. Although the President's Council on Bioethics has come up with quite a few dystopian scenarios, in reality, propranolol is expected to only affect the emotional character of the memory, not the narrative (the memory of the event itself). If propranolol becomes an effective treatment, it would likely only weaken how often individuals remember the traumatic event and how upsetting it is to remember it, not whether they can remember exactly what happened.

But what if there was such a drug that could weaken or erase traumatic memories? This question, which was brought up as an objection by the President's Council on Bioethics, has even been referenced in a movie (The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Would it be such a bad treatment that research into such a drug should be discouraged?

One possible objection brought up is that individuals could misuse such a drug. A soldier or terrorist could kill innocents and forget the whole thing if he found it troubling, enabling him to go do the same thing again with no remorse. Furthermore, the potential for abuse abounds in using the medication on others. Witnesses to crimes could be forced to forget the crime, people could be "poisoned" to forget important events , and dictators could surely find applications to enhance control over their unsuspecting populace.

While these are all scary propositions, I think they pale in importance to the relief this drug could possibly give people. Except for the person choosing to take it themself, such as a repentant terrorist, even worse (but similar societal) effects currently happen all the time, but instead of just losing their memory, witnesses and the like lose their lives.

The other main objection is that using this drug, as a valid treatment, could have negative societal effects. The victim of a rape, for example, might not be able to testify against their rapist if they were given the drug prior to testimony, and the rapist may be able to go free and hurt others. This is a valid concern, but more a legal and practical issue than an ethical one. The legal system might need to adjust to such a drug, for example by scheduling trials or allowing lawyers to examine witnesses early, and tape these examinations so that the victim can then take the drug. Perhaps the law might force those that wish to take such a drug to complete their portion of the trial prior to treatment. Restricting the treatment possibilities of innocent victims, however, is not an appropriate way to address these concerns.

Note: I work on projects relating to propranolol and PTSD, so some may imagine a conflict of interest. As someone who supports this sort of research (and far stronger research as well), I prefer to see it as a nice confluence of interest instead.