Drawn from memory

Scientists in Canada, who were treating a 50-year-old man for a major obesity problem, have apparently discovered that a technique called deep brain stimulation can radically improve the memory.

The treatment, intended to alter the patient's appetite, made him experience extremely vivid, full colour memories. He saw himself in a park at the age of about 20, with a former girlfriend. As the intensity of the stimulation increased, so did the intensity of the déjà vu.

As well giving a whole new meaning to the phrase "thanks for the memory", it has raised hopes that the technique could be used to treat people with conditions like the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease.

Personally, I think anything that improves the basic memory function has to be welcomed - though I have reservations about this particular technique, because (a) I don't much fancy having electrodes put in my brain, and (b) there are some episodes in my life that I am very happy to remain buried in my unconscious, and I have no desire to be troubled by them coming back to me in glorious technicolour, thank-you very much, Mr Canadian scientist.

Where was I? Oh yes, what I really could do with is something that improves your basic short to medium-term memory. My long-term recollection seems okay, but the other stuff - you know, the kind of things you really need to remember, like important birthdays and anniversaries, where you put your passport just before leaving for the airport, and what you're supposed to be doing tomorrow - just seems to evaporate into thin air.

If it carries on I might end up like the bloke in the film who had to write messages on his body because he couldn't recall even the most basic details about himself.

I try to peddle the theory that this is all down to my memory being overloaded by all the information my brain has stored up, but I have to face the possibility that, as the grey hairs multiply, it might actually be down to age.

If so, it's just another reason to be worried about the passing of the years, along with all modern music sounding the same, a complete failure to understand new technology, and all the scare stories about how the NHS might not be there to support us when our bodies start to go wrong.

One of the latest of these, which made the front page of a national newspaper, concerned a survey of doctors, many of whom thought being "too old" was a good reason for not getting NHS treatment - along with the usual suspects of smoking, drinking, and being too fat.

If I were someone who believed in conspiracy theories, I might wonder if this was all about softening us up for some radical, and overt, changes to the way people qualify for treatment, with even Gordon Brown dropping hints about patients' "responsibilities" to the NHS.

Of course, treating the elderly and those with chronic illnesses puts a strain on the health service. But then, so does the fact that people break their bones or twist their limbs while skiing, playing football, hang-gliding, or even doing their day-to-day jobs, particularly if they happen to be ones involving physical effort. But how often do we hear doctors declaring they should only treat people who lead sensible lives, who take moderate exercise and do not indulge in hazardous hobbies or livelihoods?

There is also, of course, the argument that the older members of our society, or fat smokers for that matter, may have put at least as much money into the NHS as a young, healthy skier. But this isn't about fairness, I'm afraid. If the conspiracy theory is correct, it's about saving money, and if a climate of moral disapproval will help to get health rationing past the electorate, then be sure that weapon will be deployed.

Mind you, if obesity does become a bar to NHS treatment, then at least the overweight people will be able to turn to the Canadian scientists and their electrodes in the brain.

Which is where all this started, if I remember rightly.