↓ Skip to main content

Erasing traumatic memories: when context and social interests can outweigh personal autonomy

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 206)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
30 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Erasing traumatic memories: when context and social interests can outweigh personal autonomy
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13010-014-0021-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Lavazza

Abstract

Neuroscientific research on the removal of unpleasant and traumatic memories is still at a very early stage, but is making rapid progress and has stirred a significant philosophical and neuroethical debate. Even if memory is considered to be a fundamental element of personal identity, in the context of memory-erasing the autonomy of decision-making seems prevailing. However, there seem to be situations where the overall context in which people might choose to intervene on their memories would lead to view those actions as counterproductive. In this article, I outline situations where the so-called composition effects can produce negative results for everyone involved, even if the individual decisions are not as such negative. In such situations medical treatments that usually everyone should be free to take, following the principle of autonomy, can make it so that the personal autonomy of the individuals in the group considered is damaged or even destroyed. In these specific cases, in which what is called the "conformity to context" prevails, the moral admissibility of procedures of memory-erasing is called into question and the principle of personal autonomy turns out to be subordinate to social interests benefitting every member of the group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Ireland 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 42%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 4 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2020.
All research outputs
#671,592
of 19,391,637 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#16
of 206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,943
of 225,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,391,637 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 225,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them