![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Removed
I don't think this is true. Modern psychosurgery isn't used very much for the same things that the lobotomy was used for.
I feel that this article villainizes the practice of lobotomy and over-represents the complications associated with this long-used, controversial and (admittedly) crude surgical practice. As a physician, I feel that the only reason we don't use lobotomies today is that they are done easier with chemicals, not because it is a cruel or unsuccessful way to treat a patient. This article could benefit from the wisdom of an expert on the subject who has actual medical or academic experience. The main section also needs references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.218.167 ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved Leukotomy here. This is the most common name for the procedure. Lengis 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
These two pages have very little difference between them in content; the Psychosurgery page has no real discussion of surgeries other than Lobotomy. The latter is the more familiar concept, so it seems the right page to merge into. -- Ogdred 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It would seem the correct way to apporach this is to work on Psychosurgery to expand it past lobotmies. I'm not an expert in that area, but it seems like it needs some significant improvement. -- Perimosocordiae 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely do not merge these two articles. The Lobotomy is much too specific, and should be considered effectively as a subset of Psychosurgery. -- 129.59.122.209 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Lobotomy is too notable. It must have its own article. SakotGrimshine 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Lobotomy was an important and controversial treatment in the last century. I would think the subject should earn a bigger article than this. The "popular references" section is almost as big as the rest *shrugs* -- Jambalaya 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that it was an important method for curing our mentally augmented americans DON"T MERGE it -- Terrorhunter63 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Psychosurgery needs to be expanded to talk more generally and not only to the lobotomy. -- Ryckmonster 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I hardly knew anything about lobotomies and have just read this article, but somehow I don'T feel content. Can someone, as said above, please expand it! I would like to know why doctors found it neccessary to perform a lobotomy; i.e. any mental abnormality? Any reference to the cases performed today woulf be good as well. Also, how did the patient change? Surely they could not have been cured.. was there a change in IQ, a 'dumbification' (I know, the word doesn't exist, but it's rather interesting). -Thanks!
I've seen this inkling around a lot, but I think it's fairly clear that protagonist in the book Invisible Man did not in fact have a lobotomy, but an early round of ECT. This is hinted by his memory loss, teeth chattering, convulsions and not in the least from his continued high levels of cognitive function later on in the novel.
Plenty of references can be seen by searching Google with key terms like: "invisible man electroconvulsive therapy"
I will take the liberty in removing this from the bullet list.
I have removed the whole section about lobotomy in "Popular Culture". I think it's time that we take a good look at this article and I think most of us will realize that the "Popular Culture" have grown way to big. This should be an article about the neurosurgery method and not line after line with silly song lyrics and various movie references. I don't think the "Popular Culture"-section should be any longer than a paragraph. Let's focus on the neuroscience aspect in this article from now on, OK?? -- Jambalaya 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz
Pre-frontal lobotomy and Pre-frontal leucotomy are to distinct techniques. Pre-frontal leucotomy (Egas Moniz, 1936) - from the Greek leuco=white + tomos=cut - means a section of the white matter of the pre-frontal region of the brain. This sections is made by an instrument that was invented by Egas Moniz that is called a leucotome. On the other hand, frontal lobotomy was a technique invented by Walter Freeman (1895-1972) and James Watts (1904-1994) and very used by these two scientists in the USA. (From the greek lobos=portion/part + tomos=cut, i.e. the section of the frontal lobe. The instrument used was similar to an ice pick and the access was trans-orbital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.129.228.172 ( talk) 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Sounds pretty much the same, so the tool had a different name. The end result is still retardation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.117.235 ( talk) 12:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm reading the 5th paragraph in the history section and come across a sentence that talks about an IGAS report. When I click on the IGAS link, it leads to an article for I've Got a Secret (TV Show). That can't be right, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by netmaster5k ( talk • contribs)
Howard Dully: July 3 2007
There are serval forms of Lobotomy one they removed the skull cap then they drilled through the skull to access the brain and then finally Dr. Walter Freeman, my benifactor, developed a quick method of penetrating through the eye sockets thus the term orbital, the procedure was very crude at best and contrary to what I have read here, most procedures could not have been considered successful in the long term, only in the short term while the patient was still in a mental fog.
For the record, I think this practice is sick and wrong! I mean, I have seen gruesome videos such as complete human autopsy and suicidal people shooting themselves in the head thus exploding the brain, yet feeling nothing. For some reason I found this ( or precisely the idea of it) is more brutal and disguisting than anything I have seen, considering it is a medical procedure. -- Da Vynci 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, agreed. Many doctors in the past have found themselves paths to the deepest regions of hell, and I'm sure that there are a few that are doing the same today, in various theatres. Research medicine can be a morally dangerous profession. We must be catious. Thrawn562 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe this pseudo medical procedure is still being used. I mean to poke a hole in someone's eye and then wriggle a blade around in the brain until the patient becomes incoherent hardly sounds like actually helping a person. They're just causing severe brain damage and on purpose. It's insane and unethical. Truly this is a diabolical act to inflict upon another person. It robs them of themselves and their sanity. It should be forbidden. I mean dear god, this is not medicine, it's horrible and monstrous. Marjolijn 22:08, 10 Oktober 2007 (CET)
I can't believe what I'm reading. This "procedure" is barbaric and should be banned. Moniz getting the Noble Prize for this is an outrage and should be denounced. athiel
I agree, reading this article made me physically nauseous. I would like to know a bit more: -Was the practice the exclusive domain of psychological therapy, or was it also used by medical doctors/ -Why the (bleep) isn't this illegal, everywhere? -How did the performers avoid death from massive blood loss? I'm no doctor, but I was of the opinion a lot of blood flows through that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The part about Rosemary Kennedy made my very sad and sickened me. I came to this article after watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this practice is nothing short of evil IMO. -- Gяaρнic 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly we see it as barbaric in hindsight, and it had plenty of detractors from the very beginning too, but we must not lose sight of the historical context. There is ample evidence that the advocates and practitioners of lobotomy genuinely believed they were helping otherwise hopeless patients. In the future people might look back on our time and say that chemotherapy, essentially poisoning people without actually killing them, is a blunt and barbaric treatment. SquareWave ( talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd categorize this as a crime against humanity. Rokasomee ( talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion of how to improve the article, not a discussion board for opinions.-- Relyt22 ( talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is there not a critism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.96.32 ( talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
From the introductory paragraph, you'd never guess that using a lobotomy to fix personality disorders is the equivalent of cutting off a hand to fix a spasming finger. 66.57.225.198 08:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed that section; it's obviously lifted from another source, and badly written and hyperlinked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.72.182 ( talk) 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In the film "From Hell", all lobotomy patients have discolored, "clouded" eyes after the operation. Since the film is based on a comic book and the overall style is rather fantastic, I suppose this is just creative liberty. Or is this a fact? -- megA 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"lobotomies and other forms of psychosurgery are no longer used." Wall street Journal reports that in China thousands of brain surgery for mental illness. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119393867164279313.html -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Did he get lobotomised? Or was he just a hypocritic bastard? Siúnrá ( talk) 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The article does a good job discussing the history of lobotomy. But I don't get a clear picture why it was considered an effective procedure. What exactly was claimed to be the purpose of the cure? For instance, I understand the purported mechanism of SSRIs and I understand the purpose of removing an inflamed appendix. What was being solved here? There must have been some theoretical underpinnings to the procedure that should be expanded upon. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
LET'S NOT FORGET: That we may not be doing all that well in checking on the long term effects of the psych medications that seem to enthrall so many. Nearly all of them increase the reaction times, thus increasing the likelihood of crashes and falls; the earlier anti-psychotics often resulted in severe and devastating movement disorders, such as tardive dyskinesia. None of the disorders listed in today's psychiatric bible: the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) offers specific and physical lab findings as diagnostic markers--all 900 pages are observational, and thus subject to improvement or deterioration--with similar absence of medically specific findings. One day, and I hope it is soon, the awards for our current fuzzy-mushy pseudo-system that over-prescribes long term medications, will be withdrawn and thrown on the trash-heap of history, right alongside the lobotomy fiasco. Homebuilding 207.178.98.26 ( talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that SSRIs are effective (nor am I saying they are not) but that I understood the purported mechanism involved and am suggesting that the article would be improved if the theoretical justification, along with the debunking of same, were added. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lobotomy article. This is not a forum for general discussion. (read at the top of each talk page)
I've rewritten the "In popular culture" to "Literary and cinematic portrayals" and rewrote it in prose vs. a discouraged list. An example needs to be relevant and to illustrate the subject -- how a work of art portrays lobotomy and in what fashion. I've deleted all references to songs, television shows, etc. that happen to use the word "lobotomy" as a metaphor or a passing mention. These are not relevant to a page dedicated to this serious medical procedure.
Also, an entry must have a verifiable citation from a reliable source. With that in mind, I had to, regrettably, delete this item:
In the 1947 radio play "Dark Curtain", Veronica Lake portrays a paranoid schizophrenic bride-to-be who receives a failed series of convulsive electroshock treatments followed by a successful lobotomy. The shock treatments and the brain surgery are described in clinical detail. The glowingly positive light in which these "advances in modern medicine" were depicted make it difficult for a contemporary audience to listen to it.
because I could find no reference to these details. Hopefully someone will find one as this is an interesting addition. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess this one does not qualify either: Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film) where one astronaut gets his noodles scrambled. User:bwildasi Tue Apr 29 20:51:53 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed two references: Hannibal, where a character has his head opened and bits of brain cut out and fed to him; and Saw, where a nurse is forced to operate on a brain tumor. Neither is a lobotomy. 71.110.159.41 ( talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The article fails to explain the goal or purpose of lobotomy. It says that lobotomy causes major personality changes and it was used to treat some illnesses. But it does not says about the intended effects of it. And about the the actual results. Were there any case when it cured anything ? What ? How ? Now it seems, as if surgeons cut brain, expecting some improvement in patients, but nothing useful really (documented) happened. It is like describing a lighter, but failing to mention that it creates a flame and can be used to burn things.
-- Xerces8 ( talk) 09:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The sad case of the singer Lena Zavaroni, who was lobotomized at the university of Wales hospital in Cardiff UK should be mentioned in the article. It is of interest because she was lobotomized in 1999. Nothing is mentioned in the article about it's use after the 80s decade, it is implied it died out.
In the following article concerning Zavaroni dated December 2005 it was reported that there are two hospital sites in the UK still performing lobotomies. Does it still go on?
http://www.psychosurgery.org/2005/12/lena-zavaroni.html
"In September 1999, she underwent a psychosurgical operation in the University of Wales hospital in Cardiff, one of only two centres in the UK that still perform such operations. Three weeks later, still in hospital, she died of an infection. She was thirty-five years old." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.10.193 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, July 11, 2008
I know the press at the time of her death (in particular the BBC) said "it is understood to have been a leucotomy" [1], although the hospital did not discuss the operation. Later on, after the inquest, the BBC no longer referred to it as a leucotomy. [2]. Therefore, I don't believe she should be mentioned. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)A special surgical procedure is available as a last-resort treatment for the most severe cases of chronic clinical depression. It's not a treatment for anorexia and it's not a lobotomy.[emphasis added]
The article "leucotomy" links directly to "lobotomy". Also the article starts: "A lobotomy (Greek: lobos: Lobe of brain, tomos: "cut/slice") is a form of psychosurgery, also known as a leukotomy or leucotomy (from Greek leukos: clear or white and tomos meaning "cut/slice").". My question is relevant. (User:92.6.10.193)
We should mention the film Total Recall about lobotomy. Because my English is not quite good, I hope that other contributors will do that. Thanks! - Nicolae Coman ( talk) 12:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just read the Nobel Foundation's article on their award to Moniz, [3] apparently written in 1998 by a then 66-year old psychiatrist. I was shocked to see such a disgustingly one-sided misleading article. It seems to be a notable fact for this Wikipedia article that the foundation is apparently defending the procedure?
"the leukotomy managed at least to make life more endurable for the patients and their surroundings" - Um, where's the evidence for "endurable" - I guess they referring to being a mental vegetable? "Surroundings" seems to be a euphemism for patient's families or society - perhaps an underhand implication of dangerousness - so, well, as long as it gave others a peaceful time eh...I think a lot of people didn't find it that endurable finding their loved ones turned into slobbering idiots with a decimated personality (which apparently was a "side" effect of shoving sharp implements in the brain)
It says the procedure "became rather popular in many countries all over the world" with no mention of countries banning it or all the individuals being disgusted from seeing the experiments. It says "I see no reason for indignation at what was done in the 1940s as at that time there were no other alternatives!" - Oh jolly good! I suppose they were only mentals so let's just do whatever we can think of to them then.
It refers to the "successful period" of lobotomies, quotes in apparently agreement statistics purporting to show that most either "recovered" or were "greatly improved", quotes without judgement Moniz saying it was "simple" and "always safe", implies it was only ethically dubious if done against patient's wishes but even then "what is it exactly that such a patient wants" anwyay!!! (hmm well maybe they wanted a chunk of their brain removed, yeah that must be it).
Although it credits Moniz with inspiring the enthusiasm for the later mass use and icepick methods etc, which by most accounts were barbaric unethical practices done with sickening disregard, making neurologists/psychiatrists faint at hte sight and rousing protests from groups etc, it calls them "sophisticated" and says "there is no doubt that Moniz deserved the Nobel Prize" (oh right, no doubt eh....none at all...? I'm sure there were some Nazi experimenters who made similar progress in this area, seems a bit unfair to them no?) EverSince ( talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that this is from a country that forcibly sterilized its psychiatric patients until as late as the 1970s, which that Swedish psychiatrist was presumably involved in... EverSince ( talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Found a view on this Why Nobel should rescind the prize and dedicate it instead to the victims. Also cites a science magazine article/later Nobel laureate that "The jury failed to appreciate how widely discredited the procedure had become by the time it tapped Moniz." "It was a terrible mistake that caused permanent damage to thousands of patients," And points out that while Sweden and the Nobel Foundation defend it, Norway awarded compensation to surviving lobotomy patients. EverSince ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
75.164.208.6 removed this from the article:
Whether a lobotomy ever occurred or whether it was performed by Dr. Freeman himself is a matter of much debate. [1]
with the comment:
Farmer article contains numerous cites verifying no lobotomy; previous cite ignores original author's recantation of lobotomy claim)
I reverted their edit stating that the source here used ("Myths and Mysterious of Washington") asserted that whether she had a lobotomy is, in fact, in debate.
75.164.208.6 commented on my talk page:
The book you are citing completely ignores the fact that Arnold, the only person to allege a lobotomy, stated in a court case that his claim was fiction. If you're going to insist on things being "debatable," you need to include that salient piece of information, which is included in the Farmer article (the actual court records are cited in a footnote). Or the fact that Jack El-Hai, Freeman's biographer and the only person to be given unlimited access to Freeman's extensive papers and, more importantly, patient records, found no mention of Farmer whatsoever. 75.164.208.6 ( talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
and then added to the article:
William Arnold later admitted in a court case that many elements of his book, including the lobotomy episode, were "fictionalized." Freeman's biographer, Jack El-Hai, the only person to be granted unlimited access to Freeman's files and patient records, found no mention of Farmer whatsoever.
unfortunately with no sources. So I went to the Frances Farmer article to see where the user is getting this information. Apparently they are relying on this source: SHEDDING LIGHT ON SHADOWLAND. This is not a reliable source. A reliable source is one that comes from a third-party published source known for its fact checking -- a published book, newspaper, magazine or scholarly journal. This source is the equivalent of a blog from a jazz musician which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The book (a reliable source) "Myths and Mysteries of Washington" gives many reasons why this assertion is debatable, including that Freeman told his son that Farmer was the woman in the famous photograph which El-Hai confirmed but then added:
Twenty years later, Franklin Freeman felt less certain and recalled only that he had heard the identification of Farmer in the photo secondhand.
El-Hai, a credible reliable source, doesn't come down affirmatively on this issue. In other words, it is debatable.
My point is this: that it is debatable seems to be a sufficient assertion without fleshing out all of the pros and cons in this article. If we add in all of the cons as you desire, then for the sake of
neutrality, then we would have to add all of the cons pros. And this article is an inappropriate article for such detail. I would argue that we should add in the El-Hai and the Arnold books as additional sources for the truthful statement that this is debatable. The Kaufmann article is not a reliable source. Thoughts?
∴ Therefore
cogito·
sum
19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Let the Farmer page layout the entire argument scheme. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Whether a lobotomy ever occurred or whether it was performed by Dr. Freeman himself
is a matter of much debatewas asserted by her biographer William Arnold [2] but others find his claim dubious with little or no supporting evidence. [3] [4]
I'll go ahead and make this change but am more than willing to amend further. I do prefer that the details be left to the Farmer page itself. Although I'm tempted to pick nits with the implications of the lawsuit (whether trial strategy is really a good indication of truth because the primary point of the strategy was if everything in it was true, then there would be no lawsuit -- the judge concluded as much) I'll leave that to others on the Farmer page. As I'm sure you know, using the lawsuit transcripts is not appropriate for Wikipedia ( WP:PSS) -- a published third party would need to evaluate its usefulness. And I'm sure that El-Hai found Kauffman useful; his online article was well written and apparently well researched. It still shouldn't be used as a source for the Farmer page. I have faith that El-Hai confirmed Kauffman's assertions which is why he is useful. Thanks for the page numbers -- I'll add them to El-Hai reference. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Whether a lobotomy ever occurred or whether it was performed by Dr. Freeman himself
was assertedas claimed byher biographerthe writer William Arnold [5] is considered by others asbut others find his claimdubious with little or no supporting evidence. [6] [7]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Didn't we used to have a photo of a lobotomized brain? The current photo is of a 'non-lobotomized brain'. Isn't that like having a photo in an article on automobiles titled 'not a car'? -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 05:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what an image of an ice pick was for, but I deleted it. (Unsigned comment by User:75.148.113.57)
This section needs development on: 1. Medical paternalism and culture, especially in relation to therapy and patient consent (to what extent was patient consent seen as necessary in any medical field). Psychiatric patients and diminished responsibility. Dehumanisation of psychiatric patients (particularly in the context of large public asylums). 2. Growth of asylum populations from the 19th to the early mid 20th century. Problems associated with this. Also, eugenics and psychiatric populations. 3. Population of "chronic" patients in psychiatric hospitals. 4. Licence for radical therapies was granted due to perceived inevitable terminal degeneration of patients diagnosed as schizophrenics. If such a patient was likely to end their days as a dement, according to the medical opinions of the day, then radical interventions (as with General Paralysis of the Insane and Fever Therapy) were seen as justified. 5. Association of these interventions, seen, at least, in the popular press as "cures" (rather than as, at best, treating certain symptoms) with modern medicine and positive developments. 6. Desire of psychiatrists to reintegrate with mainstream medicine. "Heroic therapies" - were seen as potential routes to this reintegration. Freekra ( talk) 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments EEng, they're very apposite. OK. I'll see about severely condensing down that first paragraph on historical context and the development of heroic psychiatric treatments. Also points about Jewish doctors and Nazi sympathesisers are well made. Thanks again and if you have any time to pop in occassionally and make other useful observations I'd much appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don't know how to archive I talk page, but I'll look into it. Freekra ( talk) 10:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Eventually figured out how to archive talk page. See the link above for the archive. I've kept this section as the only existing current discussion. Freekra ( talk) 11:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Freaky. Thanks again EEng ;) Freekra ( talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The major reason I'd like someone to have a look at El Hai's book is so that some statements about Freeman can be accorded a proper citation with page numbers. It would be easier to rewrite the section on Freeman if it could be ascertained what is currently factual in the text. In regard to doing everything myself, I was hoping that by putting up a to-do list I might encourage other editors to participate. I'm not quite sure about the process of recruiting other people to help. For myself, I have a deadline looming so I might have to leave this article as it stands for a week or so. In regard to other sources, it is easier for me to locate journal articles, at the moment, than books. So, if someone else has access to Valenstein and Shutts that would be wonderful. Patient experiences are a major problem. Dully is exceptional as he was a child when he had his lobotomy performed and was able to recover in a way that most adult survivors would not have been able to. First place to start, I guess, is with the psychiatric literature on side-effects, critiques of the procedure, etc. Thanks again for your comments EEnd Freekra ( talk) 09:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to keep plugging away at this article but any help in editing the article with sourced and non-biased material would be appreciated. Whatever one's feelings about the procedure there should be no need to say that it is "barbaric" etc. Simply describing the procedure, its history and outcomes should be sufficient to allow the reader to make up their own minds.
I've already made some changes - inserting the Historical Context, dividing the history of the procedure into the contributions of Buckhardt, Moniz, Freeman and a Reaction Section. The latter should probably moved into a separate section and extensively re-edited. I don't think Norbert Weiner's reaction is particularly relevant. There were plenty of other critical reactions from parties more closely related to the subject. I've also expanded the section on Buckhardt and begun editing the section on Moniz.
Proposed To-do list.
Any comments, help, etc, would be much appreciated. Freekra ( talk) 12:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) It might also be an idea to have a section outlining the varous types and techniques used. Freekra ( talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
"The most frequent application of lobotomy was in a asylum setting" - Actually this appears not to have been the case, at least in regard to those procedures performed by Freeman and Watts pre 1943 Freekra ( talk) 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Moniz section now expanded and almost finished. Need a bit on how his leucotomies were initially received. Freekra ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Most people will come upon this page looking for two basic pieces of information: 1. what a lobotomy is and 2. why the procedure was traditionally undertaken. I suggest that someone edits the Introduction or that first paragraph at the top of the page making it more accessible to ordinary people, while leaving the rest as technical or detailed as necessary. The page also feels a bit more like a college-level essay than an encyclopaedia entry (use of sentences such as "As per personX's description, a lobotomy was traditionally performed by blah blah" rather than using something along the lines of "A lobotomy was traditionally performed by blah blah [insert citation to personX]")--
82.32.195.84 (
talk)
22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Apart from some more images of icepicks and hammers used by Freeman for the transorbital lobotomies, I haven't been able to find any non-copyrighted images to cover the other aspects of the procedure and I have no experience in sourcing such items. What I'd really like to use are the images from the following article which is public access but still under copyright: Bilateral Frontal Lobe Leucotomy in the Treatment of Mental Disease This article has some excellent images - particularly Fig. 2 which visually demonstrates the conception of mental processes at that time which supported the procedure. Does anyone know if it's even possible to get a release on such images? Freekra ( talk) 21:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any experience of doing this? What's the likelihood of the publisher granting a release on an article that was published in the late 1940s? Freekra ( talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken re photos of doctors etc. I guess I was just looking for anything visually I could include and really that's all there is available. If you disagree with any current photos or any textual changes I've made delete/rewrite without compunction. I actually hadn't read the maritime analogy in the article until you brought it up. I wonder how many frontal lobes McKenzie would think that it takes to change a lightbulb? It's bizarre. Freekra ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Added this section and, while I personally think it might improve the article, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Any feedback would be welcome. Freekra ( talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your pruning of the notable non-notables. Dully, I believe is mostly useful in terms of the info he provides regarding Freeman from the radio doc he did. That's now the source for the grapefruit story etc until I can get another written one. What I was wondering about, though, were the medical case histories I took from that journal article. Are they appropriate here or outside the article? I'm asking again cause I'm a little confused as to which section you're referring to in your comments above - the notable non-notables or to the medical case histories? Thanks again for all your help and "sage advice". :) Freekra ( talk) 02:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like there's a lot of empirical information here about the effects of lobotomy, either intended or unintended. Is the 1970 medical dictionary excerpt intended as an authoritative and still-current description of lobotomy's typical effects, or is it intended to be historical? This is especially important because the article does describe popular depictions of lobotomy, and it should comment on to what extent they are accurate.
It also doesn't have much information on what the experts actually concluded -- were lobotomies sometimes effective, but too damaging? Were they too often used inappropriately to justify cases where they helped? Were they (as a few sources in the article suggest, but do not support with evidence) completely destructive, but for a time therapists mistook the effects of brain damage for improved mental health? Or was the whole thing a monstrous fad that was built on nothing at all?
I apologize for asking these questions when I can do nothing to help answer them, but since this page seems to have a number of active editors, I thought I'd mention it. Inhumandecency ( talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't apologise they're all good questions. Empirical information is scant on the efficacy of the treatment although I will be inserting more material of fairly large studies drawn from the 1940s and 1950s. So far as I can ascertain there are no double-blind trials or any studies approaching contemporary standards in the medical literature from when the procedure was current. This is not that surprising as this was true of a lot of the production of medical knowledge it would seem until at least the 1950s (open to correction on that). Mostly these type of physical therapies were introduced with quite a bit of fanfare in the medical press claiming huge recovery rates. Other clinicians tried to reproduce this, rarely succeeding, but were at least pleased to get any therapy that might achieve recoveries over the average spontaneous remission rate. There doesn't appear to have been a lot of control for selection bias here (taking acute cases for insulin shock therapy etc). Once there was an international acceptance of the procedure as effective - on whatever grounds that actually stood - there was little incentive to challenge the therapy. Psychiatrists had a huge investment in procedures that held out the promise of a cure or alleviation of symptoms because they had so little else in their medical armoury. Moreover, cardiazol shock therapy, insulin coma therapy and surgical leucotomy (not the office procedure of Freeman who has a bit of the medical mountebank about him) were avenues for asylum doctors to attempt to reintegrate with the wider medical profession. Asylum doctors (as distinct from Psychoanalysts - although they too could embrace physical therapies by Freudianising their mode of action) had a huge investment and, as with the case of insulin in 1957, when good evidence was produced calling a procedure into question they fell back on the authority of their clinical experience to rebut it. Empirically they were right in any case with ECT, it would seem, and probably cardiazol too.
However, I'm sure there are later follow-up studies of lobotomy procedures. I haven't gone looking for them yet, but I will.
I wouldn't think it was built on nothing. Undoubtedly, in the context of large asylums especially, and from a management point of view some of the results were "positive". Difficult to manage patients could become much less of a drain on resources and that is made explicit in the literature, as are a lot of the more unpleasant side-effects (something is always lost of the person etc). However, these are mostly drawn from clinical observations rather than any robust statistical studies. Psychiatrists at this time were much more trained in reading and drawing inferences from case studies - and taught through that means - than through large statistical studies.
The 1970s dictionary is intended not as authority on the actual effects of lobotomy but of the contemporary medical understanding. I intend to supplement it with stuff drawn from each decade of the procedure's existence.
The short answer is that the article is not yet complete and I'll be looking to find as much authoritative info as possible on the actual impact of lobotomy. But I'll need a little time and any help would be appreciated Freekra ( talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
'Ok. Got one follow-up study 2009 Longterm outcome of leucotomy on behaviour of people with schizophrenia from Journal of Social Psychiatry of 87 lobotomised schizophrenics, all army vets avg. age 71 yrs, who had had the procedure approx. 45 years previously. Study briefly goes through the historical medical literature on the subject. States that need for controlled trials wasn't recognised until 1000s of people had had the procedure. No contemporary objective assessment of cognitve or psychosocial outcomes. Little can be drawn from contemporary studies claiming positive outcomes: not robust studies. Strict criteria for surgery not applied - often indiscriminate usage. This study measured 87 lobotomised schizophrenics against one control of non-lobotomised schizophrenics and another control group with multiple othe diagnosis. Little significant difference between the two groups other than that the lobotomised group were somewhat more irritable. Study states one of the proposed impacts of the surgery was to reduce irritability - so a fail on that point. Concludes that long-term effects of chronic schizophrenia had more impact on them than long-term effects of leucotomy. Refers also four other studies on long-term effects of leucotomy which, it says, generally supports their results that re schizophrenia over the long haul having more impact that the lobotomy. Will track these studies down.
The truth, I suspect, is that you're not going to get a proper answer to how effective it was. The best you might be able to say is that the procedure was used on 1000s of people with no proper evaluation of its effects. Freekra ( talk) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There's naturally a lot of overlap of potential content between Lobotomy and Psychosurgery. Even now 'Psychosurgery' has lists of lobotomy pts, the Frances Farmer story, etc. Meanwhile, this article (Lobotomy) is getting quite long. Perhaps Psychosurgery should be thought of as a main article (not sure that's the right term) and lobotomy and certain other things as sub-articles to it. At the very least, discussion of work leading up to lobotomy could be moved out of here and into Psychosurgery (or into an "early work" sub-article to Psychosurgery). Also, discussion of opposition/concerns re lobotomy could be discussed with that re psychosurgery in general -- that would be another sub-article perhaps. Same for ethical/abuse issues, lists of pts and so on. This way Lobotomy article could be pretty narrowly on things about that procedure (that includes plenty -- Moniz, Freeman, Freeman's version of procedure, etc) with Pschosurgery containing material (or pointing to sub-articles) on historical context and all that other stuff, including newer psychosurgery techniques. EEng ( talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree about the UK article -- it's a numbing recitation of dates and hospital names and numbers of patients; and saying Dr. X "volunteered his pts as guniea pigs" is a very, very bad sign. There are some useful facts here, and on general principle it's likely the Psychosurgery and Lobotomy articles will need more non-American material, but probably, if we're going to pursue our megalomaniac merge-it-all-together plan, there's no justification for a separeate "in the UK" article. EEng ( talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the references might be useful. As to the "bowing" --- I think I should be clear: I'm no expert on all this. Your opinion counts just as much. EEng ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this part can be divided into positive expected outcomes and comment more on the side effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.230.9.179 ( talk) 06:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Removed
I don't think this is true. Modern psychosurgery isn't used very much for the same things that the lobotomy was used for.
I feel that this article villainizes the practice of lobotomy and over-represents the complications associated with this long-used, controversial and (admittedly) crude surgical practice. As a physician, I feel that the only reason we don't use lobotomies today is that they are done easier with chemicals, not because it is a cruel or unsuccessful way to treat a patient. This article could benefit from the wisdom of an expert on the subject who has actual medical or academic experience. The main section also needs references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.218.167 ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved Leukotomy here. This is the most common name for the procedure. Lengis 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
These two pages have very little difference between them in content; the Psychosurgery page has no real discussion of surgeries other than Lobotomy. The latter is the more familiar concept, so it seems the right page to merge into. -- Ogdred 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It would seem the correct way to apporach this is to work on Psychosurgery to expand it past lobotmies. I'm not an expert in that area, but it seems like it needs some significant improvement. -- Perimosocordiae 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely do not merge these two articles. The Lobotomy is much too specific, and should be considered effectively as a subset of Psychosurgery. -- 129.59.122.209 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Lobotomy is too notable. It must have its own article. SakotGrimshine 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Lobotomy was an important and controversial treatment in the last century. I would think the subject should earn a bigger article than this. The "popular references" section is almost as big as the rest *shrugs* -- Jambalaya 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that it was an important method for curing our mentally augmented americans DON"T MERGE it -- Terrorhunter63 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Psychosurgery needs to be expanded to talk more generally and not only to the lobotomy. -- Ryckmonster 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I hardly knew anything about lobotomies and have just read this article, but somehow I don'T feel content. Can someone, as said above, please expand it! I would like to know why doctors found it neccessary to perform a lobotomy; i.e. any mental abnormality? Any reference to the cases performed today woulf be good as well. Also, how did the patient change? Surely they could not have been cured.. was there a change in IQ, a 'dumbification' (I know, the word doesn't exist, but it's rather interesting). -Thanks!
I've seen this inkling around a lot, but I think it's fairly clear that protagonist in the book Invisible Man did not in fact have a lobotomy, but an early round of ECT. This is hinted by his memory loss, teeth chattering, convulsions and not in the least from his continued high levels of cognitive function later on in the novel.
Plenty of references can be seen by searching Google with key terms like: "invisible man electroconvulsive therapy"
I will take the liberty in removing this from the bullet list.
I have removed the whole section about lobotomy in "Popular Culture". I think it's time that we take a good look at this article and I think most of us will realize that the "Popular Culture" have grown way to big. This should be an article about the neurosurgery method and not line after line with silly song lyrics and various movie references. I don't think the "Popular Culture"-section should be any longer than a paragraph. Let's focus on the neuroscience aspect in this article from now on, OK?? -- Jambalaya 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz
Pre-frontal lobotomy and Pre-frontal leucotomy are to distinct techniques. Pre-frontal leucotomy (Egas Moniz, 1936) - from the Greek leuco=white + tomos=cut - means a section of the white matter of the pre-frontal region of the brain. This sections is made by an instrument that was invented by Egas Moniz that is called a leucotome. On the other hand, frontal lobotomy was a technique invented by Walter Freeman (1895-1972) and James Watts (1904-1994) and very used by these two scientists in the USA. (From the greek lobos=portion/part + tomos=cut, i.e. the section of the frontal lobe. The instrument used was similar to an ice pick and the access was trans-orbital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.129.228.172 ( talk) 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Sounds pretty much the same, so the tool had a different name. The end result is still retardation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.117.235 ( talk) 12:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm reading the 5th paragraph in the history section and come across a sentence that talks about an IGAS report. When I click on the IGAS link, it leads to an article for I've Got a Secret (TV Show). That can't be right, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by netmaster5k ( talk • contribs)
Howard Dully: July 3 2007
There are serval forms of Lobotomy one they removed the skull cap then they drilled through the skull to access the brain and then finally Dr. Walter Freeman, my benifactor, developed a quick method of penetrating through the eye sockets thus the term orbital, the procedure was very crude at best and contrary to what I have read here, most procedures could not have been considered successful in the long term, only in the short term while the patient was still in a mental fog.
For the record, I think this practice is sick and wrong! I mean, I have seen gruesome videos such as complete human autopsy and suicidal people shooting themselves in the head thus exploding the brain, yet feeling nothing. For some reason I found this ( or precisely the idea of it) is more brutal and disguisting than anything I have seen, considering it is a medical procedure. -- Da Vynci 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, agreed. Many doctors in the past have found themselves paths to the deepest regions of hell, and I'm sure that there are a few that are doing the same today, in various theatres. Research medicine can be a morally dangerous profession. We must be catious. Thrawn562 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe this pseudo medical procedure is still being used. I mean to poke a hole in someone's eye and then wriggle a blade around in the brain until the patient becomes incoherent hardly sounds like actually helping a person. They're just causing severe brain damage and on purpose. It's insane and unethical. Truly this is a diabolical act to inflict upon another person. It robs them of themselves and their sanity. It should be forbidden. I mean dear god, this is not medicine, it's horrible and monstrous. Marjolijn 22:08, 10 Oktober 2007 (CET)
I can't believe what I'm reading. This "procedure" is barbaric and should be banned. Moniz getting the Noble Prize for this is an outrage and should be denounced. athiel
I agree, reading this article made me physically nauseous. I would like to know a bit more: -Was the practice the exclusive domain of psychological therapy, or was it also used by medical doctors/ -Why the (bleep) isn't this illegal, everywhere? -How did the performers avoid death from massive blood loss? I'm no doctor, but I was of the opinion a lot of blood flows through that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The part about Rosemary Kennedy made my very sad and sickened me. I came to this article after watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this practice is nothing short of evil IMO. -- Gяaρнic 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly we see it as barbaric in hindsight, and it had plenty of detractors from the very beginning too, but we must not lose sight of the historical context. There is ample evidence that the advocates and practitioners of lobotomy genuinely believed they were helping otherwise hopeless patients. In the future people might look back on our time and say that chemotherapy, essentially poisoning people without actually killing them, is a blunt and barbaric treatment. SquareWave ( talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd categorize this as a crime against humanity. Rokasomee ( talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion of how to improve the article, not a discussion board for opinions.-- Relyt22 ( talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is there not a critism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.96.32 ( talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
From the introductory paragraph, you'd never guess that using a lobotomy to fix personality disorders is the equivalent of cutting off a hand to fix a spasming finger. 66.57.225.198 08:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed that section; it's obviously lifted from another source, and badly written and hyperlinked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.72.182 ( talk) 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In the film "From Hell", all lobotomy patients have discolored, "clouded" eyes after the operation. Since the film is based on a comic book and the overall style is rather fantastic, I suppose this is just creative liberty. Or is this a fact? -- megA 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"lobotomies and other forms of psychosurgery are no longer used." Wall street Journal reports that in China thousands of brain surgery for mental illness. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119393867164279313.html -- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Did he get lobotomised? Or was he just a hypocritic bastard? Siúnrá ( talk) 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The article does a good job discussing the history of lobotomy. But I don't get a clear picture why it was considered an effective procedure. What exactly was claimed to be the purpose of the cure? For instance, I understand the purported mechanism of SSRIs and I understand the purpose of removing an inflamed appendix. What was being solved here? There must have been some theoretical underpinnings to the procedure that should be expanded upon. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
LET'S NOT FORGET: That we may not be doing all that well in checking on the long term effects of the psych medications that seem to enthrall so many. Nearly all of them increase the reaction times, thus increasing the likelihood of crashes and falls; the earlier anti-psychotics often resulted in severe and devastating movement disorders, such as tardive dyskinesia. None of the disorders listed in today's psychiatric bible: the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) offers specific and physical lab findings as diagnostic markers--all 900 pages are observational, and thus subject to improvement or deterioration--with similar absence of medically specific findings. One day, and I hope it is soon, the awards for our current fuzzy-mushy pseudo-system that over-prescribes long term medications, will be withdrawn and thrown on the trash-heap of history, right alongside the lobotomy fiasco. Homebuilding 207.178.98.26 ( talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that SSRIs are effective (nor am I saying they are not) but that I understood the purported mechanism involved and am suggesting that the article would be improved if the theoretical justification, along with the debunking of same, were added. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lobotomy article. This is not a forum for general discussion. (read at the top of each talk page)
I've rewritten the "In popular culture" to "Literary and cinematic portrayals" and rewrote it in prose vs. a discouraged list. An example needs to be relevant and to illustrate the subject -- how a work of art portrays lobotomy and in what fashion. I've deleted all references to songs, television shows, etc. that happen to use the word "lobotomy" as a metaphor or a passing mention. These are not relevant to a page dedicated to this serious medical procedure.
Also, an entry must have a verifiable citation from a reliable source. With that in mind, I had to, regrettably, delete this item:
In the 1947 radio play "Dark Curtain", Veronica Lake portrays a paranoid schizophrenic bride-to-be who receives a failed series of convulsive electroshock treatments followed by a successful lobotomy. The shock treatments and the brain surgery are described in clinical detail. The glowingly positive light in which these "advances in modern medicine" were depicted make it difficult for a contemporary audience to listen to it.
because I could find no reference to these details. Hopefully someone will find one as this is an interesting addition. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess this one does not qualify either: Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film) where one astronaut gets his noodles scrambled. User:bwildasi Tue Apr 29 20:51:53 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed two references: Hannibal, where a character has his head opened and bits of brain cut out and fed to him; and Saw, where a nurse is forced to operate on a brain tumor. Neither is a lobotomy. 71.110.159.41 ( talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The article fails to explain the goal or purpose of lobotomy. It says that lobotomy causes major personality changes and it was used to treat some illnesses. But it does not says about the intended effects of it. And about the the actual results. Were there any case when it cured anything ? What ? How ? Now it seems, as if surgeons cut brain, expecting some improvement in patients, but nothing useful really (documented) happened. It is like describing a lighter, but failing to mention that it creates a flame and can be used to burn things.
-- Xerces8 ( talk) 09:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The sad case of the singer Lena Zavaroni, who was lobotomized at the university of Wales hospital in Cardiff UK should be mentioned in the article. It is of interest because she was lobotomized in 1999. Nothing is mentioned in the article about it's use after the 80s decade, it is implied it died out.
In the following article concerning Zavaroni dated December 2005 it was reported that there are two hospital sites in the UK still performing lobotomies. Does it still go on?
http://www.psychosurgery.org/2005/12/lena-zavaroni.html
"In September 1999, she underwent a psychosurgical operation in the University of Wales hospital in Cardiff, one of only two centres in the UK that still perform such operations. Three weeks later, still in hospital, she died of an infection. She was thirty-five years old." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.10.193 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, July 11, 2008
I know the press at the time of her death (in particular the BBC) said "it is understood to have been a leucotomy" [1], although the hospital did not discuss the operation. Later on, after the inquest, the BBC no longer referred to it as a leucotomy. [2]. Therefore, I don't believe she should be mentioned. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)A special surgical procedure is available as a last-resort treatment for the most severe cases of chronic clinical depression. It's not a treatment for anorexia and it's not a lobotomy.[emphasis added]
The article "leucotomy" links directly to "lobotomy". Also the article starts: "A lobotomy (Greek: lobos: Lobe of brain, tomos: "cut/slice") is a form of psychosurgery, also known as a leukotomy or leucotomy (from Greek leukos: clear or white and tomos meaning "cut/slice").". My question is relevant. (User:92.6.10.193)
We should mention the film Total Recall about lobotomy. Because my English is not quite good, I hope that other contributors will do that. Thanks! - Nicolae Coman ( talk) 12:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just read the Nobel Foundation's article on their award to Moniz, [3] apparently written in 1998 by a then 66-year old psychiatrist. I was shocked to see such a disgustingly one-sided misleading article. It seems to be a notable fact for this Wikipedia article that the foundation is apparently defending the procedure?
"the leukotomy managed at least to make life more endurable for the patients and their surroundings" - Um, where's the evidence for "endurable" - I guess they referring to being a mental vegetable? "Surroundings" seems to be a euphemism for patient's families or society - perhaps an underhand implication of dangerousness - so, well, as long as it gave others a peaceful time eh...I think a lot of people didn't find it that endurable finding their loved ones turned into slobbering idiots with a decimated personality (which apparently was a "side" effect of shoving sharp implements in the brain)
It says the procedure "became rather popular in many countries all over the world" with no mention of countries banning it or all the individuals being disgusted from seeing the experiments. It says "I see no reason for indignation at what was done in the 1940s as at that time there were no other alternatives!" - Oh jolly good! I suppose they were only mentals so let's just do whatever we can think of to them then.
It refers to the "successful period" of lobotomies, quotes in apparently agreement statistics purporting to show that most either "recovered" or were "greatly improved", quotes without judgement Moniz saying it was "simple" and "always safe", implies it was only ethically dubious if done against patient's wishes but even then "what is it exactly that such a patient wants" anwyay!!! (hmm well maybe they wanted a chunk of their brain removed, yeah that must be it).
Although it credits Moniz with inspiring the enthusiasm for the later mass use and icepick methods etc, which by most accounts were barbaric unethical practices done with sickening disregard, making neurologists/psychiatrists faint at hte sight and rousing protests from groups etc, it calls them "sophisticated" and says "there is no doubt that Moniz deserved the Nobel Prize" (oh right, no doubt eh....none at all...? I'm sure there were some Nazi experimenters who made similar progress in this area, seems a bit unfair to them no?) EverSince ( talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that this is from a country that forcibly sterilized its psychiatric patients until as late as the 1970s, which that Swedish psychiatrist was presumably involved in... EverSince ( talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Found a view on this Why Nobel should rescind the prize and dedicate it instead to the victims. Also cites a science magazine article/later Nobel laureate that "The jury failed to appreciate how widely discredited the procedure had become by the time it tapped Moniz." "It was a terrible mistake that caused permanent damage to thousands of patients," And points out that while Sweden and the Nobel Foundation defend it, Norway awarded compensation to surviving lobotomy patients. EverSince ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
75.164.208.6 removed this from the article:
Whether a lobotomy ever occurred or whether it was performed by Dr. Freeman himself is a matter of much debate. [1]
with the comment:
Farmer article contains numerous cites verifying no lobotomy; previous cite ignores original author's recantation of lobotomy claim)
I reverted their edit stating that the source here used ("Myths and Mysterious of Washington") asserted that whether she had a lobotomy is, in fact, in debate.
75.164.208.6 commented on my talk page:
The book you are citing completely ignores the fact that Arnold, the only person to allege a lobotomy, stated in a court case that his claim was fiction. If you're going to insist on things being "debatable," you need to include that salient piece of information, which is included in the Farmer article (the actual court records are cited in a footnote). Or the fact that Jack El-Hai, Freeman's biographer and the only person to be given unlimited access to Freeman's extensive papers and, more importantly, patient records, found no mention of Farmer whatsoever. 75.164.208.6 ( talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
and then added to the article:
William Arnold later admitted in a court case that many elements of his book, including the lobotomy episode, were "fictionalized." Freeman's biographer, Jack El-Hai, the only person to be granted unlimited access to Freeman's files and patient records, found no mention of Farmer whatsoever.
unfortunately with no sources. So I went to the Frances Farmer article to see where the user is getting this information. Apparently they are relying on this source: SHEDDING LIGHT ON SHADOWLAND. This is not a reliable source. A reliable source is one that comes from a third-party published source known for its fact checking -- a published book, newspaper, magazine or scholarly journal. This source is the equivalent of a blog from a jazz musician which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The book (a reliable source) "Myths and Mysteries of Washington" gives many reasons why this assertion is debatable, including that Freeman told his son that Farmer was the woman in the famous photograph which El-Hai confirmed but then added:
Twenty years later, Franklin Freeman felt less certain and recalled only that he had heard the identification of Farmer in the photo secondhand.
El-Hai, a credible reliable source, doesn't come down affirmatively on this issue. In other words, it is debatable.
My point is this: that it is debatable seems to be a sufficient assertion without fleshing out all of the pros and cons in this article. If we add in all of the cons as you desire, then for the sake of
neutrality, then we would have to add all of the cons pros. And this article is an inappropriate article for such detail. I would argue that we should add in the El-Hai and the Arnold books as additional sources for the truthful statement that this is debatable. The Kaufmann article is not a reliable source. Thoughts?
∴ Therefore
cogito·
sum
19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Let the Farmer page layout the entire argument scheme. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Whether a lobotomy ever occurred or whether it was performed by Dr. Freeman himself
is a matter of much debatewas asserted by her biographer William Arnold [2] but others find his claim dubious with little or no supporting evidence. [3] [4]
I'll go ahead and make this change but am more than willing to amend further. I do prefer that the details be left to the Farmer page itself. Although I'm tempted to pick nits with the implications of the lawsuit (whether trial strategy is really a good indication of truth because the primary point of the strategy was if everything in it was true, then there would be no lawsuit -- the judge concluded as much) I'll leave that to others on the Farmer page. As I'm sure you know, using the lawsuit transcripts is not appropriate for Wikipedia ( WP:PSS) -- a published third party would need to evaluate its usefulness. And I'm sure that El-Hai found Kauffman useful; his online article was well written and apparently well researched. It still shouldn't be used as a source for the Farmer page. I have faith that El-Hai confirmed Kauffman's assertions which is why he is useful. Thanks for the page numbers -- I'll add them to El-Hai reference. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Whether a lobotomy ever occurred or whether it was performed by Dr. Freeman himself
was assertedas claimed byher biographerthe writer William Arnold [5] is considered by others asbut others find his claimdubious with little or no supporting evidence. [6] [7]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Didn't we used to have a photo of a lobotomized brain? The current photo is of a 'non-lobotomized brain'. Isn't that like having a photo in an article on automobiles titled 'not a car'? -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 05:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what an image of an ice pick was for, but I deleted it. (Unsigned comment by User:75.148.113.57)
This section needs development on: 1. Medical paternalism and culture, especially in relation to therapy and patient consent (to what extent was patient consent seen as necessary in any medical field). Psychiatric patients and diminished responsibility. Dehumanisation of psychiatric patients (particularly in the context of large public asylums). 2. Growth of asylum populations from the 19th to the early mid 20th century. Problems associated with this. Also, eugenics and psychiatric populations. 3. Population of "chronic" patients in psychiatric hospitals. 4. Licence for radical therapies was granted due to perceived inevitable terminal degeneration of patients diagnosed as schizophrenics. If such a patient was likely to end their days as a dement, according to the medical opinions of the day, then radical interventions (as with General Paralysis of the Insane and Fever Therapy) were seen as justified. 5. Association of these interventions, seen, at least, in the popular press as "cures" (rather than as, at best, treating certain symptoms) with modern medicine and positive developments. 6. Desire of psychiatrists to reintegrate with mainstream medicine. "Heroic therapies" - were seen as potential routes to this reintegration. Freekra ( talk) 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments EEng, they're very apposite. OK. I'll see about severely condensing down that first paragraph on historical context and the development of heroic psychiatric treatments. Also points about Jewish doctors and Nazi sympathesisers are well made. Thanks again and if you have any time to pop in occassionally and make other useful observations I'd much appreciate it. Unfortunately, I don't know how to archive I talk page, but I'll look into it. Freekra ( talk) 10:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Eventually figured out how to archive talk page. See the link above for the archive. I've kept this section as the only existing current discussion. Freekra ( talk) 11:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Freaky. Thanks again EEng ;) Freekra ( talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The major reason I'd like someone to have a look at El Hai's book is so that some statements about Freeman can be accorded a proper citation with page numbers. It would be easier to rewrite the section on Freeman if it could be ascertained what is currently factual in the text. In regard to doing everything myself, I was hoping that by putting up a to-do list I might encourage other editors to participate. I'm not quite sure about the process of recruiting other people to help. For myself, I have a deadline looming so I might have to leave this article as it stands for a week or so. In regard to other sources, it is easier for me to locate journal articles, at the moment, than books. So, if someone else has access to Valenstein and Shutts that would be wonderful. Patient experiences are a major problem. Dully is exceptional as he was a child when he had his lobotomy performed and was able to recover in a way that most adult survivors would not have been able to. First place to start, I guess, is with the psychiatric literature on side-effects, critiques of the procedure, etc. Thanks again for your comments EEnd Freekra ( talk) 09:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to keep plugging away at this article but any help in editing the article with sourced and non-biased material would be appreciated. Whatever one's feelings about the procedure there should be no need to say that it is "barbaric" etc. Simply describing the procedure, its history and outcomes should be sufficient to allow the reader to make up their own minds.
I've already made some changes - inserting the Historical Context, dividing the history of the procedure into the contributions of Buckhardt, Moniz, Freeman and a Reaction Section. The latter should probably moved into a separate section and extensively re-edited. I don't think Norbert Weiner's reaction is particularly relevant. There were plenty of other critical reactions from parties more closely related to the subject. I've also expanded the section on Buckhardt and begun editing the section on Moniz.
Proposed To-do list.
Any comments, help, etc, would be much appreciated. Freekra ( talk) 12:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) It might also be an idea to have a section outlining the varous types and techniques used. Freekra ( talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
"The most frequent application of lobotomy was in a asylum setting" - Actually this appears not to have been the case, at least in regard to those procedures performed by Freeman and Watts pre 1943 Freekra ( talk) 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Moniz section now expanded and almost finished. Need a bit on how his leucotomies were initially received. Freekra ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Most people will come upon this page looking for two basic pieces of information: 1. what a lobotomy is and 2. why the procedure was traditionally undertaken. I suggest that someone edits the Introduction or that first paragraph at the top of the page making it more accessible to ordinary people, while leaving the rest as technical or detailed as necessary. The page also feels a bit more like a college-level essay than an encyclopaedia entry (use of sentences such as "As per personX's description, a lobotomy was traditionally performed by blah blah" rather than using something along the lines of "A lobotomy was traditionally performed by blah blah [insert citation to personX]")--
82.32.195.84 (
talk)
22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Apart from some more images of icepicks and hammers used by Freeman for the transorbital lobotomies, I haven't been able to find any non-copyrighted images to cover the other aspects of the procedure and I have no experience in sourcing such items. What I'd really like to use are the images from the following article which is public access but still under copyright: Bilateral Frontal Lobe Leucotomy in the Treatment of Mental Disease This article has some excellent images - particularly Fig. 2 which visually demonstrates the conception of mental processes at that time which supported the procedure. Does anyone know if it's even possible to get a release on such images? Freekra ( talk) 21:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any experience of doing this? What's the likelihood of the publisher granting a release on an article that was published in the late 1940s? Freekra ( talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken re photos of doctors etc. I guess I was just looking for anything visually I could include and really that's all there is available. If you disagree with any current photos or any textual changes I've made delete/rewrite without compunction. I actually hadn't read the maritime analogy in the article until you brought it up. I wonder how many frontal lobes McKenzie would think that it takes to change a lightbulb? It's bizarre. Freekra ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Added this section and, while I personally think it might improve the article, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Any feedback would be welcome. Freekra ( talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your pruning of the notable non-notables. Dully, I believe is mostly useful in terms of the info he provides regarding Freeman from the radio doc he did. That's now the source for the grapefruit story etc until I can get another written one. What I was wondering about, though, were the medical case histories I took from that journal article. Are they appropriate here or outside the article? I'm asking again cause I'm a little confused as to which section you're referring to in your comments above - the notable non-notables or to the medical case histories? Thanks again for all your help and "sage advice". :) Freekra ( talk) 02:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like there's a lot of empirical information here about the effects of lobotomy, either intended or unintended. Is the 1970 medical dictionary excerpt intended as an authoritative and still-current description of lobotomy's typical effects, or is it intended to be historical? This is especially important because the article does describe popular depictions of lobotomy, and it should comment on to what extent they are accurate.
It also doesn't have much information on what the experts actually concluded -- were lobotomies sometimes effective, but too damaging? Were they too often used inappropriately to justify cases where they helped? Were they (as a few sources in the article suggest, but do not support with evidence) completely destructive, but for a time therapists mistook the effects of brain damage for improved mental health? Or was the whole thing a monstrous fad that was built on nothing at all?
I apologize for asking these questions when I can do nothing to help answer them, but since this page seems to have a number of active editors, I thought I'd mention it. Inhumandecency ( talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't apologise they're all good questions. Empirical information is scant on the efficacy of the treatment although I will be inserting more material of fairly large studies drawn from the 1940s and 1950s. So far as I can ascertain there are no double-blind trials or any studies approaching contemporary standards in the medical literature from when the procedure was current. This is not that surprising as this was true of a lot of the production of medical knowledge it would seem until at least the 1950s (open to correction on that). Mostly these type of physical therapies were introduced with quite a bit of fanfare in the medical press claiming huge recovery rates. Other clinicians tried to reproduce this, rarely succeeding, but were at least pleased to get any therapy that might achieve recoveries over the average spontaneous remission rate. There doesn't appear to have been a lot of control for selection bias here (taking acute cases for insulin shock therapy etc). Once there was an international acceptance of the procedure as effective - on whatever grounds that actually stood - there was little incentive to challenge the therapy. Psychiatrists had a huge investment in procedures that held out the promise of a cure or alleviation of symptoms because they had so little else in their medical armoury. Moreover, cardiazol shock therapy, insulin coma therapy and surgical leucotomy (not the office procedure of Freeman who has a bit of the medical mountebank about him) were avenues for asylum doctors to attempt to reintegrate with the wider medical profession. Asylum doctors (as distinct from Psychoanalysts - although they too could embrace physical therapies by Freudianising their mode of action) had a huge investment and, as with the case of insulin in 1957, when good evidence was produced calling a procedure into question they fell back on the authority of their clinical experience to rebut it. Empirically they were right in any case with ECT, it would seem, and probably cardiazol too.
However, I'm sure there are later follow-up studies of lobotomy procedures. I haven't gone looking for them yet, but I will.
I wouldn't think it was built on nothing. Undoubtedly, in the context of large asylums especially, and from a management point of view some of the results were "positive". Difficult to manage patients could become much less of a drain on resources and that is made explicit in the literature, as are a lot of the more unpleasant side-effects (something is always lost of the person etc). However, these are mostly drawn from clinical observations rather than any robust statistical studies. Psychiatrists at this time were much more trained in reading and drawing inferences from case studies - and taught through that means - than through large statistical studies.
The 1970s dictionary is intended not as authority on the actual effects of lobotomy but of the contemporary medical understanding. I intend to supplement it with stuff drawn from each decade of the procedure's existence.
The short answer is that the article is not yet complete and I'll be looking to find as much authoritative info as possible on the actual impact of lobotomy. But I'll need a little time and any help would be appreciated Freekra ( talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
'Ok. Got one follow-up study 2009 Longterm outcome of leucotomy on behaviour of people with schizophrenia from Journal of Social Psychiatry of 87 lobotomised schizophrenics, all army vets avg. age 71 yrs, who had had the procedure approx. 45 years previously. Study briefly goes through the historical medical literature on the subject. States that need for controlled trials wasn't recognised until 1000s of people had had the procedure. No contemporary objective assessment of cognitve or psychosocial outcomes. Little can be drawn from contemporary studies claiming positive outcomes: not robust studies. Strict criteria for surgery not applied - often indiscriminate usage. This study measured 87 lobotomised schizophrenics against one control of non-lobotomised schizophrenics and another control group with multiple othe diagnosis. Little significant difference between the two groups other than that the lobotomised group were somewhat more irritable. Study states one of the proposed impacts of the surgery was to reduce irritability - so a fail on that point. Concludes that long-term effects of chronic schizophrenia had more impact on them than long-term effects of leucotomy. Refers also four other studies on long-term effects of leucotomy which, it says, generally supports their results that re schizophrenia over the long haul having more impact that the lobotomy. Will track these studies down.
The truth, I suspect, is that you're not going to get a proper answer to how effective it was. The best you might be able to say is that the procedure was used on 1000s of people with no proper evaluation of its effects. Freekra ( talk) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There's naturally a lot of overlap of potential content between Lobotomy and Psychosurgery. Even now 'Psychosurgery' has lists of lobotomy pts, the Frances Farmer story, etc. Meanwhile, this article (Lobotomy) is getting quite long. Perhaps Psychosurgery should be thought of as a main article (not sure that's the right term) and lobotomy and certain other things as sub-articles to it. At the very least, discussion of work leading up to lobotomy could be moved out of here and into Psychosurgery (or into an "early work" sub-article to Psychosurgery). Also, discussion of opposition/concerns re lobotomy could be discussed with that re psychosurgery in general -- that would be another sub-article perhaps. Same for ethical/abuse issues, lists of pts and so on. This way Lobotomy article could be pretty narrowly on things about that procedure (that includes plenty -- Moniz, Freeman, Freeman's version of procedure, etc) with Pschosurgery containing material (or pointing to sub-articles) on historical context and all that other stuff, including newer psychosurgery techniques. EEng ( talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree about the UK article -- it's a numbing recitation of dates and hospital names and numbers of patients; and saying Dr. X "volunteered his pts as guniea pigs" is a very, very bad sign. There are some useful facts here, and on general principle it's likely the Psychosurgery and Lobotomy articles will need more non-American material, but probably, if we're going to pursue our megalomaniac merge-it-all-together plan, there's no justification for a separeate "in the UK" article. EEng ( talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the references might be useful. As to the "bowing" --- I think I should be clear: I'm no expert on all this. Your opinion counts just as much. EEng ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this part can be divided into positive expected outcomes and comment more on the side effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.230.9.179 ( talk) 06:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)