Would you use this drug?
Supposing there was a drug which put you to sleep for surgery. Suppose this drug wasnt fully understood but appeared to have (from the external side at least) the desired effect of neutralising pain and awareness.
But, suppose that while in this medically induced state of unconsciousness you were not unaware of the pain but rather had an inability to remember it afterwards, would you still be comfortable using the drug?
You may have the most harrowing experience of surgery, feeling the scalpel as it moves and all the damage and pain it inflicts but cannot scream out because youre paralysed, but, as soon as the operation is done you have completely forgotten you were ever suffering? Is this ethical? Did the transient suffering even matter?
But, suppose that while in this medically induced state of unconsciousness you were not unaware of the pain but rather had an inability to remember it afterwards, would you still be comfortable using the drug?
You may have the most harrowing experience of surgery, feeling the scalpel as it moves and all the damage and pain it inflicts but cannot scream out because youre paralysed, but, as soon as the operation is done you have completely forgotten you were ever suffering? Is this ethical? Did the transient suffering even matter?
Comments (11)
Of course, it would be less bad overall than same amount of pain which you would actually remember (because in that case the memory would also haunt you afterwards; in your scenario, it wouldn't).
I'm under the impression that it has been studied and that pain does show up on EEG and such, and if true, that would seem to place your scenario mainly in the "everything's possible" category (because we would already know if it was so), right?
If the anaesthetic also made you experience time more slowly, at which point would that change your assessment that you'd be fine with it? If the surgery takes an hour and you're in terrible pain for what feels like an hour, you're fine with it. But what if your agony would feel like it lasts two hours, a week, a year? Would you still be fine with it as long as you remember none of it afterwards? If so, why does the duration matter?
I agree, it does not. Or, at least, that's my majority opinion. From a rational standpoint, since I will not suffer any consequences (except for the benefits of surgery) after the event, and I will make the decision before the event, I can safely agree to it and live with it afterwards.
The scenario you're describing is quite horrific, and, if I were aware that this would definitely happen to me, that horror would likely effect my decision. But that would not be a rational objection, just an emotional reaction to the magnitude of the horrific idea. I might have such a reaction to e.g. gory details of the procedure in advance.
That said, rational me comes back with: "If someone told me this would happen, I would call BS on it." Anything of that magnitude should leave some effect on the sufferer, which would violate the final-state condition I gave in my previous reply. So even if I were wrong and it were true, I would discover this after I disbelieved it and made my decision, and would never know or regret or tell of it after. Should I find out by some other means later, I would keep the stance that it was ethical, presuming the surgery is necessary.
Midazolam serves this purpose and is commonly used in conjunction with anaesthesia.
In order to survive the pain you have to move away from the conscious realm that the pain occurs as it were hence opiates and synthetic compounds
Wouldnt this mean the intensity of the pain would be extremely reduced... as your perception of the frequency (time dependent) of pain impulses that you're receiving from the injury site would be dilated out along a longer time period. I guess I would come across as a dull continuous pain