This is a problem of rational choice to which I don't think there is a uniquely correct answer:
Choice 1 : Person at t1 in normal condition, Person at t2 in extreme agony, Person at t3 in normal condition, rich for the rest of their lives and with no memory of t2.
Choice 2 : Person at t1 in normal condition, Person at t2 in normal condition, Person at t3 in normal condition.
There could be an equally rational defence of either choice. But I am reminded of the kind of arguments to be found in Thomas Nagel, In Defense of Altruism, and Derek Parfit in Reasons and Persons, to the effect that all stages in one's life carry equal significance. A state of oneself two or ten years from now is just as important as one's present state. On this basis I might be inclined to go for Choice 1. One's condition at t2 is very different between the Choices : in one case it is negative and in the other positive or neutral. But all future states of one's life will be very much better from t3 onwards under Choice 1 and
merely no different under Choice 2.
Or rather, all mine would be, all else equal : if you don't care much about money or even regard it as a blight, your rational option would be Choice 2.