Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41199338›Full record

ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2025

The problem of moral obligation to preserve or erase memories in trauma treatment.

Junjie Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Junjie YangDepartment of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing, China. yangjunjie@stu.pku.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People who have experienced traumatic events often suffer from the burden of painful memories. Recent advances in neuropharmaceuticals and neurotechnologies have enabled the modification and even erasure of traumatic memories, raising both therapeutic hopes and ethical concerns. One view argues that individuals have a moral obligation to preserve traumatic memories; therefore, erasing such memories amounts to an evasion of moral obligations and is therefore unacceptable. However, neither deontological ethics nor rule consequentialism can justify the claim that patients have an obligation to preserve their traumatic memories. In fact, memory erasure, as a transformative experience, situates individuals within a context of decision-making under uncertainty, thereby highlighting their moral obligations to themselves. Trauma survivors may seek memory erasure technologies as a way of honoring their moral obligations to their past, present, and future selves. In this sense, such interventions may be regarded as morally permissible.

Indexed as

MemoryMoral ObligationsStress Disorders, Post-TraumaticHumansMemory modificationNeuroethicsPTSDTransformative experienceTrauma

Identifiers

PMID41199338
PMCPMC12593934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.