As before, this is a thought experiment and there is no right or wrong answer here. If you chose to respond please make it relevant, don't waste space with a comment that has little to no worth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scenario: 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 passed through, he seemed unnaturally calm.

'How was that?' asked the Doc.
'Fine,' replied the patient. '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?' said the Doc.
'Not at all. I'm not at all apprehensive.' said the patient.

The doctor turned to the audience and explained that the process he developed does not, like an anesthetic, remove the sensation of pain. What it does is prevent any 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."

(The scenario is from a novel I was reading a few months back)

A philosopher, Bentham, tackled animal rights at one point. He said the question is not can an animal reason or can they talk, but it's can they suffer? Pain in itself is bad, according to him (and utilitarianism). But how bad IS it?  The patient described above doesn't have aversive connotations with pain. So, my question to you is, could the MEMORY of pain uphold as a moral standard?