The best argument for Dr. Elsie Donovan in my opinion is the use of propranolol to help treat Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Military Veterans. The treatment for PTSD is still in infancy. However, the promise of propranolol displays potential to service members who suffer from psychological and physiological effects. First, propranolol has the bad street name the “forgetting therapy” when in fact research suggest that it is not anything like amnesia. One of the strongest arguments against propranolol is that propranolol gives us a fake sense of the pursuit of happiness. The opposition believes this means; our memories and experiences in life make us who we are, and patients taking propranolol wont recall “facts” of the traumatic events. Yet, the argument becomes unsettled because treatment from propranolol does not cause memory loss as such. Instead, it separates emotions from memories. Even then, the opposition can attack the fact that propranolol separates emotions. For example, a military service member suffering from PTSD taking propranolol might not be triggered by an event to activate his PTSD. However, the medicine could make him distant from everyone, not caring about anything. He could leave his family and go out drinking, not thinking twice about it. This creates a whole new problem in the service member’s family. The mind is yet to be entirely comprehended. The practice of propranolol might modify a memory for the better. Yet, it could have a utterly distinctive consequence on another area of the brain. More research on the study of the brain is necessary before this method should be put into practice. Other area of concerns with propranolol is it should be supported to work as a method to treat PTSD. However, it could be used too generously.
The best argument for the President’s Council is the obligation to remember. The book, “Taking Sides” mentions the surviving members of the holocaust. It even prompts the questions, “What kind...