Random header image... Refresh for more!

Setting Your Level of Happiness

This will be the most interesting question you read this week.  (I know, a big promise, but I’ll deliver if you get through the background information.)

A person has a device implanted that helps regulate his mood through electrical stimulation.  In order to calibrate the voltage level, the doctors have to test out different amounts of electricity, watching to see how the person’s happiness levels improve and anxiety diminishes.  The doctors get the person to the point where the person reports that they are at a 10 for happiness but a zero for anxiety.  At that point, the doctors dial back the voltage to leave room for healthy mood swings.

The patient is about to leave when he asks if the doctors can bump up the voltage.  Why should he deal with levels of sadness if he doesn’t have to deal with levels of sadness?  The doctors respond that they need to set the voltage at the level they determine is a healthy level, and the patient leaves without fighting it.

BUT.

Should the patient be allowed to choose their happiness level if they’re in a situation where they can choose their happiness level?  The article points out that this is different from other medical decisions, such as choosing the calibration of a pacemaker: “Few laymen understand how to regulate heartbeat, but everyone is an expert on his or her own disposition. Why not allow patients to set their own moods to suit their own circumstances and desires?”

We’re talking about a situation that is black and white; not a medication that may or may not improve mood.  If you could set a dial and control a person’s mood, who should be in charge of setting the dial?

The patient or the doctor?

Especially in light of the fact that a person needs to report their mood and thoughts for their doctor to do their job.  Even though some data can be gained from observation and testing, mood isn’t like your pulse, which a doctor can measure.  Or you temperature or various hormones in your blood.  This is something slipperier.

See, I told you that it was interesting.  Who do you think should be in charge of the decision?

8 comments

1 Cristy { 05.22.18 at 9:27 am }

I’m going to sound like a downer, but this sounds a lot like being on heroine/opioids. And though there are benefits to being happy, the question is what happens when someone becomes use to that level of bliss all the time? Something that initially may seem benign actually can be problematic, just as we’ve seen with chronic opioid use.

All that said, this treatment is fascinating. I’ve been hearing about electrical stimulation for treating depression for years (and all the controversy around it). Very interesting to think that there’s an underlying wiring issue that can potentially be resolved.

2 a { 05.22.18 at 9:49 am }

There is no right answer, since, as the article points out, some people will either expect a reward that is not actually forthcoming (as with the alcoholic) or will want to stimulate the area of the brain to the exclusion of all other sensation. And then there will be people who would self-regulate just fine.

In general, I think that patients, in conjunction with their doctors, should decide together what the appropriate levels are. Unfortunately, given the cost of procedures to set the device, I also think it’s better to err on the side of caution, and consider anxiety or sadness levels rather than happiness levels. I think that being resilient is part of the full-life experience, and depression and anxiety interfere with that. Removing those obstacles would be valuable.

3 Lori Lavender Luz { 05.22.18 at 11:31 am }

I wonder if there’s a line between a doctor getting someone out of pain (going from negative to neutral) and turning the patient into something almost bionic (going from neutral to positive). I get what Helen Mayberg said:

“It’s not my job as a neurologist to make people happy.
“I liberate my patients from pain and counteract the progress of disease. I pull them up out of a hole and bring them from minus 10 to 0, but from there the responsibility is their own. They wake up to their own lives and to the question: Who am I?”

I think that’s one of the fundamental questions of being human, and I don’t think it should be avoided (but what if a person wants to avoid it?). So maybe the person gets to decide about getting out of pain, but the doc gets to decide once the measure moves past neutral.

I reserve the right to change my mind as I continue to think about this. Thanks a lot!

4 Northern Star { 05.22.18 at 4:13 pm }

Crazy! It seems offside a bit to create a person that I feel in some ways would lack empathy. Like how would they relate to people experiencing sadness if they can’t at all. I would find it super annoying to hang out with someone who was perpetually happy……

That said, I don’t see why someone can’t choose to be constantly happy… like isn’t this life’s goal? Aren’t some religions based solely on the pursuit of happiness? I don’t see why someone can’t choose to be always happy…

5 torthuil { 05.23.18 at 1:39 am }

Fascinating. I thought you were writing about sci fi at first, but apparently this is real? I will read the whole article some time when it’s not so late, but at first thought I agree with Cristy: sounds like being in drugs. Like drugs could be useful for very mentally ill people but I’m sure there will be side effects. I think in the hopefully few cases this would be used both doctor and patient should negotiate. It’s your brain but someone with a more objective viewpoint would be useful.

6 Ana { 05.23.18 at 4:08 pm }

Whoa. This is responsibility I wouldn’t want to have as a doctor. Is it changeable? If its changeable, everyone should be set at the same level but then if your mood ends up being clinically depressed, then you can change it? I agree with above re: resilience, and not “happiness” being more correlated with overall well-being, health, success (in terms of positive impact on the world). Being 100% happy all the time sounds like it would be too much. The contrast makes the joy so much more meaningful. And the stress & fear sometimes drive real innovation and productivity.

7 NotMyLinesYet { 05.23.18 at 4:50 pm }

Wow, that is an interesting question! I agree with others that I immediately see an overlap with certain drugs. More, though, I wonder about the long term impact to happiness without sadness. Humans often live life by comparison. I understand what happiness is, in part because I’ve also experienced sadness. The contrast helps to bring meaning. If I no longer felt the sadness, would the happiness also diminish as a result of a lack of comparison? Would I appreciate it less, or would I be driven to seek ever higher levels of happy? Also, what would I feel about my own efficacy to manage the challenges that life sends me? I think I’d err on the side of ‘some sadness must be permissible.’

8 Mali { 05.23.18 at 6:55 pm }

I wonder if happiness is something that is always relative. Oh, I just see that NotMyLinesYet has said that exact thing, so I won’t repeat it.

I can’t imagine being ecstatically happy all the time, and I wonder if it wouldn’t be exhausting!

I also wonder if being at a 0 for anxiety wouldn’t just be plain dangerous. If we’re not a tiny bit anxious, do we look carefully at an intersection, check that we’ve turned off the stove or iron (gulp ), or stop the child running into the road? So the “do no harm” of medical ethics would actually mean that dialling the happiness up to 100% would, in fact, be doing harm, and therefore, unethical.

(c) 2006 Melissa S. Ford
The contents of this website are protected by applicable copyright laws. All rights are reserved by the author