One of the first operating theatre's in the world - Bologna's Anatomical theatre of the Archiginnasio
After a brief pause to discuss my own thought experiment and the implication it has on some narrow forms of humanism, it's time to get back into Julian Baggini's book of thought experiments, which have been inspired by the history of philosophy. This week, I'll be looking at number twenty-six in the series of one hundred experiments, but here it is now so you can form your own opinion on it before I share mine.
---------------------------------------------------
The tension in the auditorium was palpable as the doctor donned his mask and gloves and prepared to take his needle and thread to the conscious patient's strapped-down leg. As he pushed the needle through the flesh, the patient let out an almighty cry of pain. But once the needle had passed through, he seemed unnaturally calm.
"How was that?" asked the doctor.
"Fine," replied the patient, to gasps from the audience. "It's just as you said, I remember you putting the needle through me, but I don't remember any pain."
"So do you have any objection if I do the next stitch?"
"Not at all. I'm not at all apprehensive."
The doctor turned to the audience and explained: "The process I have developed does not, like an anaesthetic, remove the sensation of pain. What it does is prevent the memory of the pain being laid down in the patient's nervous system. If you are not going to remember your momentary pain, why fear it? Our patient here shows this is not just theoretical sophistry. You witnessed his pain, but he, having forgotten it, has no fear of repeating the experience. This enables us to conduct surgery with the patient fully conscious, which in some instances is extremely useful. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some stitching to do."
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 76.
---------------------------------------------------
So, assuming this is possible, would the doctor's new process be a good thing? Would this have any implications for our considerations of causing pain and suffering in other people? What about other animals? I'll be back on Friday to discuss these and other issues.
---------------------------------------------------
The tension in the auditorium was palpable as the doctor donned his mask and gloves and prepared to take his needle and thread to the conscious patient's strapped-down leg. As he pushed the needle through the flesh, the patient let out an almighty cry of pain. But once the needle had passed through, he seemed unnaturally calm.
"How was that?" asked the doctor.
"Fine," replied the patient, to gasps from the audience. "It's just as you said, I remember you putting the needle through me, but I don't remember any pain."
"So do you have any objection if I do the next stitch?"
"Not at all. I'm not at all apprehensive."
The doctor turned to the audience and explained: "The process I have developed does not, like an anaesthetic, remove the sensation of pain. What it does is prevent the memory of the pain being laid down in the patient's nervous system. If you are not going to remember your momentary pain, why fear it? Our patient here shows this is not just theoretical sophistry. You witnessed his pain, but he, having forgotten it, has no fear of repeating the experience. This enables us to conduct surgery with the patient fully conscious, which in some instances is extremely useful. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some stitching to do."
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 76.
---------------------------------------------------
So, assuming this is possible, would the doctor's new process be a good thing? Would this have any implications for our considerations of causing pain and suffering in other people? What about other animals? I'll be back on Friday to discuss these and other issues.
