![]() | 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 |
I have removed the material on the film Shutter Island. The "portrayals" section of the article begins, "Lobotomies have been featured in several literary and cinematic presentations that both reflected society's attitude towards the procedure and, at times, changed it." That's a pretty good criterion for deciding what should and should not be included in such a section (otherwise it would list scores or hundreds of works using lobotomy as some kind of plot device) and under that criterion Shutter Island doesn't qualify. It just uses lobotomy as a plot device, threat/dilemma for one character, etc. And with due respect to Dr. Gilligan, "his" comments made in promotional production notes for the film do not qualify as a reliable source. EEng ( talk) 06:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
All of the works in this section use lobotomy as a plot device by definition. I revert instances when it is used as a trivial plot device, for instance from the original list of pop cultural references, a Simpsons character dreams of lobotomizing someone or the Planet of the Apes or an X-Files episode. Shutter Island, on the other hand, is a notable work of art portraying lobotomy and the text you deleted went on to show how this work of art was critiquing its use. It falls under all the criteria in my comment section. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 18:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)PLEASE DO not ADD NON NOTABLE EXAMPLES TO THIS SECTION An example needs to be relevant to the subject -- how a work of art portrays lobotomy and in what way. Do not include references to songs, television shows that happen to use the word "lobotomy" as a metaphor or a passing mention or as a trivial plot device such as a horror movie.
To assure that the film would authentically depict psychiatric ideas and treatments of the period, Scorsese recruited a special consultant: Dr. James Gilligan, who had directed Massachusetts’ prison mental hospital for the criminally insane (the Bridgewater State Hospital) in the 1970s. The federal courts had ordered the state to allow members of the Harvard Medical School faculty, led by Dr. Gilligan, to provide the treatment programs at Bridgewater in an effort to improve the quality of mental health care there, and he has been a leader in the struggle to reform mental and penal institutions ever since, throughout America and around the world.
“We were very fortunate to have Dr. Gilligan as our technical advisor,” says Scorsese. “His book on violence is a classic and he was there in the psychiatric hospitals of the ‘60s when things were changing. Not only is he an authority on the subject, but he also understands how to tell a story and how works of art over time have reflected man’s nature.”
Gilligan accepted his assignment at Bridgewater in the days following the outcry over Fred Wiseman’s documentary film Titicut Follies, a politically explosive exposé of how despicable conditions there were, and took charge of the place during the period that marked its transformation into a more humane institution providing real hope for patients. He recalls the atrocities he witnessed firsthand: “Cells resembled medieval dungeons. Patients were literally chained to the walls, left in their own excrement. Animals in zoos were cared for more humanely,” he says. “Bridgewater went through many of the same changes, experiments and conflicts that are part of this movie.”
His statements carry weight and are an appropriate comment on the movie ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Having played a significant role in changing the practice of mental health care in the state of Massachusetts, Gilligan was especially excited by the themes of Shutter Island, and by Scorsese’s determination to bring authenticity to the film’s fictional hospital for the insane. “Marty made it clear that, within the fictional world of the story, he wanted the hospital to be depicted realistically,” he says. “We worked together to make sure the story reflected a true war that was going on in the mid-20th century within the psychiatric community: a war between those clinicians who wanted to treat these patients with new forms of psychotherapy, education and medicine, and those who regarded the violent mentally ill as incurable and advocated controlling their behavior by inflicting irreversible brain damage, including indiscriminate use of shock treatment and crude forms of brain surgery, such as lobotomies.”
...but this article says a whole lot of filler and not enough detailing what this *procedure* actually does. A lot of "it was used to cure this patient of blah" and not enough "... by **** the *** causing *** to function differently".
It's basically all fluff on history, and too few details on the actual procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.89.69 ( talk) 12:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"This new "transorbital" lobotomy involved lifting the upper eyelid and placing the point of a thin surgical instrument (often called an orbitoclast or leucotome, although quite different from the wire loop leucotome described above) under the eyelid and against the top of the eyesocket. A mallet was used to drive the orbitoclast through the thin layer of bone and into the brain along the plane of the bridge of the nose, around fifteen degrees toward the interhemispherical fissure. The orbitoclast was mallated five centimetres into the frontal lobes, and then pivoted forty degrees at the orbit perforation so the tip cut toward the opposite side of the head (toward the nose). The instrument was returned to the neutral position and sent a further two centimetres into the brain, before being pivoted around twenty eight degrees each side, to cut outwards and again inwards (In a more radical variation at the end of the last cut described, the butt of the orbitoclast was forced upwards so the tool cut vertically down the side of the cortex of the interhemispherical fissure; the "Deep frontal cut".) All cuts were designed to transect the white fibrous matter connecting the cortical tissue of the prefrontal cortex to the thalamus. The leucotome was then withdrawn and the procedure repeated on the other side." FiachraByrne ( talk) 19:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't post your opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.221.233 ( talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
… I would like to recount the story of one of the lobtomized people whose records I have kept.
He was a young Normandy peasant, very attached to his land, who had suffered all his childhood from the tyranny of an alcoholic, emotionally disturbed father, who died during a delirium tremens crisis. Heir to the estate, the patient married and had three children. He was a relentless worker, and nothing interested him except the land and what he sowed and what came up. Although well-off, he lived frugally, and his wife used to say, ‘Sometimes I wonder whether he ever thinks about the children and me’.
One day he came back to the farm and without saying anything barricaded himself in his room. When urged to come out, he called out that he did not want to see his father any more. Later, following his admission to hospital with ea chronic hallucinatory psychosis, his story could be put together. One morning in a field, he had suddenly developed a pain in his back, and it took all his strength to straighten his spine – all too often stooped over. As he raised his eyes, there, in an apple tree, he saw his father sitting astride a branch, ordering him about and shouting abuse just as he used to. This had never stopped; he could see his father everywhere, speaking to him and insulting him. Only thirty-five years old, he had been a compulsory in-patient for four years. A psychiatrist at Sotteville-lès-Rouen had referred him to [the neurosurgeon] Puech after unsuccessfully trying electroconvulsive therapy and even a Sakel treatment [insulin coma therapy]. With great difficulty the patient’s young wife had taken over the running of the farm; wanting to try everything to get her husband better, she consented to a lobotomy on his behalf.
‘The Norman’, as he was called in the department, was operated upon by Puech, and apparently this was successful – so much so that when some London psychiatrists came to pay a visit it was decided to show them the patient. Given the task of making the presentation, I went to find him in his room and explained what was going to happen.
‘These are doctors interested in your case, and you are going to give them your story, your childhood with your father, then your marriage and the reappearance of your father, and finally, the operation and you feel about things now.’
I had made summaries as a framework for the presentation and explained to the Norman how I would ask him questions in front of our foreign colleagues. Everything had to go without any hitches, to give our visitors a favourable impression. Before leaving the room, I added, ‘Of course, you will say how you feel now, and especially that, since the operation, you don’t keep seeing your father anymore.’
At this point I caught a dubious pout on the Norman’s face which struck me as being odd, so I persevered. ‘You do understand, the important thing is to say that you don’t still have an apparition of your father following you everywhere, and stopping you working.’
The Norman didn’t answer. Anxiously, I asked, ‘You understand me? You still don’t see your father.'
Always slow in answering since the operation, but well enough oriented and adjusted, the Norman shook his head, ‘No doctor, that’s right. I don’t see him anymore. That’s true!'
He paused, then added, ‘But you see, I hear him.’
Dismayed, I stood frozen to the spot, and closed the door. In the consulting room Puech and his visitors from abroad were waiting for the wonderful demonstration of ‘hallucinolytic lobotomy’ [i.e. a lobotomy that would remove hallucinations]; and there I was with my good fellow who was now going to admit to auditory hallucinations. Everything was ruined, and the demonstration was going to turn into a disaster.
At the risk of losing all respect and credit from those reading these lines I will confess to the bargain I struck, and my deceitfulness. I got the Norman to sit on the edge of his bed and stood close to him.
‘You remember your four years of being held at Sotteville. You know that when you leave here it will be to go home, to your farm. Your wife and children are waiting for you. You agree with this?’
‘Oh yes!’ he replied, with a big smile.
‘Well, if you now say that you still hear your father, everything is mucked up – finished. Goodbye to the farm, your wife, your children. You’ll be readmitted and sent to the asylum till the end of your days.’
The Norman seemed surprised.
‘But, doctor, you haven’t understood me. I told you I still hear him, but now it doesn’t bother me.’
In this answer lies the essence of the good lobotomy result: lack of interest, loss of painful and distressing emotional drive from the psychological problem in question. Being a beginner in the speciality, and a sycophantic house physician to a powerful chief, instead of debating and analysing the significance of a comparative success, I wanted a complete cure. I insisted, ‘You simply must not say that you can still hear your father, otherwise you’ll be back in the asylum.’
The Norman understood my instructions and agreed not to mention his father’s voice.
When, shortly afterwards, after I had given his history, he was asked about his hallucinations, it was with immense assurance that he replied, ‘Since the operation, I don’t see my father any more. He has vanished.’ And turning to me he added, ‘And I assure you that I don’t hear him any more.’
The secret that bound us together was well kept. I saw the Norman again several times after he had gone back to his professional and family life. Everything went well and he had some more children. When he came to see me we never spoke about his father’s voice. I like to think that, like his visual appearances, it must have vanished.
— Extract: Jean Thuillier, Ten years that changed the face of mental illness, trans. Gordon Hickish (London, 1999), pp 8-9.
Jesus this page gets about 9k visits a day.
Ok - I've moved the Gottlieb section to the Psychosurgery article. It's not directly relevant here. Other sections in psychosurgery article will now have to be expanded as well now I think.
I'm going to change the title of the section Pioneers to History. The Moniz section will be retained as is for the moment. The Walter Freeman section is going to be split in two: the first will be the Freeman-Watts technique; the second will be Transorbital lobotomy.
A range of other surgical techniques were developed (rostral, topectomy, etc) and these should get a section which will describe the technique and the rationale underlying it.
So the idea here is to restructure the article more around the variety of procedures. These will retain reference to whatever theory lead to or more frequently followed the evolution of a novel procedure.
There's now a section called Indications and Outcomes. At the time I just inserted some quotes from a 1970s Dictionary of Psychiatry that I had lying around. I think I'll wipe the content of this section and start again. Any suggestions or contributions would be appreciated. FiachraByrne ( talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Image to be added, text - meh.
I found a dead reference link in the last sentence of the "Criticism" section and removed it, and was unable to find the referenced article elsewhere online (and it was in French anyway). The sentence itself may need to be rewritten as it essentially says that 15 psychosurgeries per year were performed at Mass General Hospital in 2001. 15 per year, in that one year? I also was unable to find another reference to support this claim, or any claim as to how often the hospital currently performs such surgeries. Maybe the article in general should be reference-checked as well. -- Kangabell ( talk) 22:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This article makes the massive assumption that the reader is already informed of the intended neurological outcome of the procedure.
DarkRabbitRevenge ( talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well there you go! If the article gave the impression that you just did in the outset then it would be a lot easier for "the lay" to understand a great many things about this disgusting act. I knew nothing but rumours about this procedure (which was nothing but "they put a hole in your head, and SOMETHING is relieved"... which was nothing at all), so when I arrived on this Wiki page I was under the impression that these Doctors actually had ONE SINGLE CLUE of what they were doing. Am I understood or am I just rambling? DarkRabbitRevenge ( talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If I look up "ECT", I get a relatively detailed explanation of the laws surrounding the practice. If I look up this article, "lobotomy", I don't get any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.248 ( talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
In the section Notable Cases the link for Rosemary Kennedy is unuseable. Link 55 leads to an online book with something like 300+ pages available for viewing except pages 271-273 which are blank and it says unavailable for viewing. The link 55 says to see page 271. Mylittlezach ( talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the article for the moment. If I'm not mistaken it's attempting to show the effects of leucotomy/lobotomy based upon research on this patient in the mid-1980s? If that's so it's relevant but it needs a rewrite and, I think, the subheading should relate to something about the effects of the procedure rather than the name of these two researchers. Also it would need to contain a lot more research (it's a study of one patient, after all). FiachraByrne ( talk)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FiachraByrne ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
References
I'd like to change to change the citation style to a short footnoting system - sfn & harvnb. I'd also like to create a section in the bibliography for non paginated online sources, kind of like I'm doing here. Are there any objections to this? FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this recent edit by editor 87.67.18.206 FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
For example, lobotomy patients have difficulty putting themselves in the position of others because of decreased cognition and detachment from society.<ref name="Shutts1982">{{cite book|author=David Shutts|title=Lobotomy: resort to the knife|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=54BsAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=22 January 2013|year=1982|publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold|isbn=978-0-442-20252-1}}</ref> The popular conception of a lobotomee is of a zombielike person who has been left in a barely cognizant state by their unfortunate encounter with the surgeon's knife.<ref name="Doonan2003">{{cite book|author=Simon Doonan|title=Wacky Chicks: Life Lessons from Fearlessly Inappropriate and Fabulously Eccentric Women|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=048lZeUTlicC&pg=PA228|accessdate=22 January 2013|date=21 April 2003|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-0-7432-5459-5|pages=228–}}</ref>
I have found the following cognitive side effects. The IQ drop following a lobotomy is between 9.2 and 17 (for an individual with normal intelligence before the lobotomy). Normal intelligence is defined with an IQ above 90 as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart. The quote meets the rigid standards (scientific journal), however I don't know how to make a Wiki quote hence why I'm writing here. The book can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1955.tb00890.x/abstract Porteus refers to the Porteus maze test: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1956.6.3.135 "SOME COMMON‐SENSE IMPLICATIONS OF PSYCHOSURGERY SD Porteus - British Journal of Medical Psychology, 2011 - Wiley Online Library ... Individuals over 85 IQ in the Binet had an average decline of 9.2 IQ points after lobotomy while those under 85 IQ actually gained 2.6 points. In the Porteus those above 85 IQ in the Maze had an average decline of 17 IQ points, while those below 85 lost only 10 IQ points." 87.67.18.206 ( talk) 10:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Fleming, G. (1942). "Some preliminary remarks on prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 88 (371): 282.
Hutton, E.L. (1942). "The investigation of personality in patients treated by prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 88 (371): 275–81.
Strom-Olsen, R. (1943). "Results of prefrontal leucotomy in thirty cases of mental disorder". Journal of Mental Science. 89 (375): 165.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Meyer, A. (1945). "Neuropathological problems arising from prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 91 (385): 411.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Reitman, F. (1945). "Autonomic Responses in Prefrontal Leucotomy: Preliminary Report". Journal of Mental Science. 91 (384): 318.
Berliner, F. (1945-09-15). "Prefrontal leucotomy: report on 100 cases". Lancet. 246 (6368): 325–8.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Frank, J. (1946). "Clinical survey and results of 200 cases of prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 92 (388): 497.
Hutton, E. L. (1947). "Personality changes after leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 93 (390): 31.
Hutton, E. L. (1948). "The effect of leucotomy on creative personality". Journal of Mental Science. 94 (395): 322.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Garmany, G. (1948-04). "Personality Change and Prognosis after Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 94 (395): 428–438. doi: 10.1192/bjp.94.395.428. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)McLardy, T. (1949). "Anatomical correlates of improvement after leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 95 (398): 182.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Petrie, A. (1949-04). "Preliminary Report of Changes after Prefrontal Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 95 (399): 449–455. doi: 10.1192/bjp.95.399.449. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Rosie, J. M. (1949-04). "The Results of Prefrontal Leucotomy in 68 Patients Not Discharged from Hospital". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 95 (399): 431–448. doi: 10.1192/bjp.95.399.431. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Freudenberg, R. K. (1949-10). "Investigation into Intellectual Changes Following Prefrontal Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 95 (401): 826–841. doi: 10.1192/bjp.95.401.826. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Edwards, A. M (1950). "Preliminary Report on Transorbital Leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (405): 935.
Stengel, E. (1950). "A follow-up investigation of 330 cases treated by prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (404): 633–62.
Freudenberg, R. K. (1950-01). "Experimental Studies on Frontal Lobe Functions in Monkeys in Relation to Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 96 (402): 143–156. doi: 10.1192/bjp.96.402.143. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Stengel, E. (1950-07-01). "A Follow-Up Investigation of 330 Cases Treated by Prefrontal Leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (404): 633–62. doi: 10.1192/bjp.96.404.633.
Crown, S. (1951). "Psychological changes following prefrontal leucotomy; a review". Journal of Mental Science. 97 (406): 49. ISSN 0007-1250.
Crown, S. (1951-01). "Psychological Changes Following Prefrontal Leucotomy; A Review". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 97 (406): 49–83. doi: 10.1192/bjp.97.406.49. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Vidor, M. (1951-01). "Personality Changes Following Prefrontal Leucotomy as Reflected by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Results of Psychometric Testing". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 97 (406): 159–173. doi: 10.1192/bjp.97.406.159. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Klein, R. (1952). "Immediate Effects of Leucotomy on Cerebral Functions and their Significance: A Preliminary Report". Journal of Mental Science. 98 (410): 60.
Stengel, E. (1952). "The Patients' Attitudes to Leucotomy and its Effects". Journal of Mental Science. 98 (412): 382.
Klein, R. (1952-01). "Immediate Effects of Leucotomy on Cerebral Functions and their Significance: A Preliminary Report". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 98 (410): 60–65. doi: 10.1192/bjp.98.410.60. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Kostic, Slobodan (1953-10-01). "Experiences and Results in Prefrontal Leucotomy: A Clinical Study of 339 Leucotomized Patients". Journal of Mental Science. 99 (417): 786–95. doi: 10.1192/bjp.99.417.786.
Pippard, J. (1955). "Personality changes after rostral leucotomy: a comparison with standard prefrontal leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 101 (425): 774. ISSN 0007-1250.
Pippard, John (1955-10-01). "Second Leucotomies". Journal of Mental Science. 101 (425): 788–793. doi: 10.1192/bjp.101.425.788.
Pippard, John (1955-10-01). "Rostral Leucotomy: A Report on 240 Cases Personally Followed up After 11/2 to 5 Years". Journal of Mental Science. 101 (425): 756–73. doi: 10.1192/bjp.101.425.756.
Costello, C.G. (1956-07). "The effects of prefrontal leucotomy upon visual imagery and the ability to perform complex operations". Journal of Mental Science. 102 (428): 507–16. ISSN 1097-0088.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Robin, A. A. (1958). "A Retrospective Controlled Study of Leucotomy in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders". Journal of Mental Science. 104 (437): 1025.
Thorpe, F. T. (1958). "An evaluation of prefrontal leucotomy in the affective disorders of old age: A follow-up study". Journal of Mental Science. 104 (435): 403.
The modern papers on changes consequent to lobotomy:
Jasper, HH (1995). "A historical perspective. The rise and fall of prefrontal lobotomy". Adv Neurol. (66): 97–114. PMID 7771315.
Benson, DF; Stuss, DT; Naeser, MA; Weir, WS; Kaplan, EF; Levine, HL (1981). "Long-term effects of prefrontal leucotomy--an overview of neuropsychologic residuals". J Clin Neuropsychol. 3 (1): 13–32. PMID 7276194.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)Stuss, DT; Kaplan, EF; Benson, DF; Weir, WS; Naeser, MA; Levine, HL (1981). "Long-term effects of prefrontal leucotomy". Arch Neurol. 38 (3): 165–9. PMID 7469849.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)
-- Psychiatrick ( talk) 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It is assumed that the transection of white substance of the frontal lobes impairs their connection with the thalamus and eliminates the possibility to receive from it stimuli which lead to irritation and on the whole derange mental functions. This explanation is mechanistic and goes back to the narrow localizationism characteristic of psychiatrists of America, from where leucotomy was imported to us.
Предполагается, что перерезка белого вещества лобных долей нарушает их связи с зрительным бугром и устраняет возможность поступления из него стимулов, приводящих к возбуждению и вообще расстраивающих психические функции. Это объяснение механистично и уходит своими корнями к узкому локализационизму, свойственному психиатрам Америки, откуда и перенесена к нам лейкотомия.
The paper by Gilyarovsky proved to be enough to stop the practice of lobotomy in the Soviet Union for years to come.-- Psychiatrick ( talk) 02:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) --
Psychiatrick (
talk)
14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have the Selected Works by Gilyarovsky in Russian. The book contains the information that lobotomy was banned in the USSR on the initiative of Gilyarovsky.
In the Don hospital, V.А. Gilyarovsky introduced new methods of active therapy. It is no exaggeration to say that this hospital applied all types of therapy except for leucotomy, of which he had always disapproved. It is known that this type of treatment was banned in the USSR on the initiative of V.А. Gilyarovsky. (Gilyarovsky, V.А. (1973). Selected Works. Moscow: Medicine. p. 4 [in Russian])
В Донской лечебнице В. А. Гиляровский внедрил новые методы активной терапии. Не будет преувеличением сказать, что в этой больнице применялись все виды терапии, за исключением лейкотомии, к которой он всегда относился отрицательно. Как известно, этот вид лечения был запрещен в СССР по инициативе В. А. Гиляровского. (Гиляровский В.А. Избранные труды. — Москва: Медицина, 1973. — С. 4.)
-- Psychiatrick ( talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. I have a few more questions as, on the basis of a very cursory search, I can't find anything substantive on lobotomy in the USSR based on English language sources (actually, the only country which is really adequately covered in the sources is the US; everything else is pretty fragmented). When was lobotomy first introduced into the USSR? Is it known how many operations were performed before the 1950 ban? How long did the ban remain in place before lobotomy/psychosurgery was reintroduced? FiachraByrne ( talk) 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) --
Psychiatrick (
talk)
23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
No, Valenstein is already quoting the 40,000 figure in 1973 [5]. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). It cites this publication in support: Kaplan AD, Lambre J, Veppo AA: "Bimedial lobotomy in the treatment of pain." Second International Congress of Neurosurgery, Washington DC, 1961.
FiachraByrne (
talk)
12:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note that currently the article contains two things added by the 87 IP editor that I don't think are appropriate:
I have already reverted these items once, and it is my policy never to repeat-revert the same material, so I'll have to leave these to others to deal with. Looie496 ( talk) 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
FiachraByrne (
talk)
01:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm adding this at this point on the page because to some extent it follows from the immediately previous section. Hats off to BiancaFern ;) for taking the axe to the pop culture material. I had a very unpleasant time abt 2 years ago trying to get rid of the Shutter Island baloney and finally gave up.
In the context of another article, I proposed a standard for inclusion of pop culture material which, to my astonishment, not only gained unanimous consensus but actually converted someone who had proposed mention of a certain fictional work to the point of view that doing so would not, after all, be appropriate. (Some of you may have read about this historically unique achievement in connection with my having been nominated for the Nobel Prize for it.) Anyway, here (slightly tweaked) is what I proposed:
Later in the discussion (linked here: Talk:Lizzie Borden/Archive 2#popcult_discussion) I gave examples:
Do others think such a standard could be usefully applied in this article?
EEng ( talk) 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in title only, movies, shows, books that revolve around the topic at least in part, but no information should be given outside a brief description. ie. "sucker punch follows a girl who is undergoing a lobotomy and slips into a fantasy world before the procedure is completed." or "planet of the apes has a character suffering the effects after a lobotomy was performed" for more on the plot reader can view the wiki for that title. we cant just erase fiction, its part of our existance and deserves a place. tag the section "fictional works around lobotomy" or similar. Kevintampa5 ( talk) 19:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That all sounds like a sane enough standard for what gets included; which, I guess excludes the obvious Pink Floyd quote - surprisingly absent from the TVTropes page - "You raise the blade, you make the change, you rearrange me 'til I'm 'sane'; you lock the door - and throw away the key - there's someone in my head, but it's not me." Historically too late to have influenced public perception against the procedure, though it articulates well the aghast view once it was over. 84.215.40.194 ( talk) 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record I've added
<!-- and that includes "Sucker Punch" -- DO NOT ADD /// SUCKER PUNCH // -- see Talk -->
to the warning in the "Portrayals" section about inappropriate additions. If anyone objects (i.e. the film has worthwhile elements we've overlooked) then let's discuss. EEng ( talk) 13:37, 2 July 2015 (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 |
I have removed the material on the film Shutter Island. The "portrayals" section of the article begins, "Lobotomies have been featured in several literary and cinematic presentations that both reflected society's attitude towards the procedure and, at times, changed it." That's a pretty good criterion for deciding what should and should not be included in such a section (otherwise it would list scores or hundreds of works using lobotomy as some kind of plot device) and under that criterion Shutter Island doesn't qualify. It just uses lobotomy as a plot device, threat/dilemma for one character, etc. And with due respect to Dr. Gilligan, "his" comments made in promotional production notes for the film do not qualify as a reliable source. EEng ( talk) 06:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
All of the works in this section use lobotomy as a plot device by definition. I revert instances when it is used as a trivial plot device, for instance from the original list of pop cultural references, a Simpsons character dreams of lobotomizing someone or the Planet of the Apes or an X-Files episode. Shutter Island, on the other hand, is a notable work of art portraying lobotomy and the text you deleted went on to show how this work of art was critiquing its use. It falls under all the criteria in my comment section. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 18:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)PLEASE DO not ADD NON NOTABLE EXAMPLES TO THIS SECTION An example needs to be relevant to the subject -- how a work of art portrays lobotomy and in what way. Do not include references to songs, television shows that happen to use the word "lobotomy" as a metaphor or a passing mention or as a trivial plot device such as a horror movie.
To assure that the film would authentically depict psychiatric ideas and treatments of the period, Scorsese recruited a special consultant: Dr. James Gilligan, who had directed Massachusetts’ prison mental hospital for the criminally insane (the Bridgewater State Hospital) in the 1970s. The federal courts had ordered the state to allow members of the Harvard Medical School faculty, led by Dr. Gilligan, to provide the treatment programs at Bridgewater in an effort to improve the quality of mental health care there, and he has been a leader in the struggle to reform mental and penal institutions ever since, throughout America and around the world.
“We were very fortunate to have Dr. Gilligan as our technical advisor,” says Scorsese. “His book on violence is a classic and he was there in the psychiatric hospitals of the ‘60s when things were changing. Not only is he an authority on the subject, but he also understands how to tell a story and how works of art over time have reflected man’s nature.”
Gilligan accepted his assignment at Bridgewater in the days following the outcry over Fred Wiseman’s documentary film Titicut Follies, a politically explosive exposé of how despicable conditions there were, and took charge of the place during the period that marked its transformation into a more humane institution providing real hope for patients. He recalls the atrocities he witnessed firsthand: “Cells resembled medieval dungeons. Patients were literally chained to the walls, left in their own excrement. Animals in zoos were cared for more humanely,” he says. “Bridgewater went through many of the same changes, experiments and conflicts that are part of this movie.”
His statements carry weight and are an appropriate comment on the movie ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Having played a significant role in changing the practice of mental health care in the state of Massachusetts, Gilligan was especially excited by the themes of Shutter Island, and by Scorsese’s determination to bring authenticity to the film’s fictional hospital for the insane. “Marty made it clear that, within the fictional world of the story, he wanted the hospital to be depicted realistically,” he says. “We worked together to make sure the story reflected a true war that was going on in the mid-20th century within the psychiatric community: a war between those clinicians who wanted to treat these patients with new forms of psychotherapy, education and medicine, and those who regarded the violent mentally ill as incurable and advocated controlling their behavior by inflicting irreversible brain damage, including indiscriminate use of shock treatment and crude forms of brain surgery, such as lobotomies.”
...but this article says a whole lot of filler and not enough detailing what this *procedure* actually does. A lot of "it was used to cure this patient of blah" and not enough "... by **** the *** causing *** to function differently".
It's basically all fluff on history, and too few details on the actual procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.89.69 ( talk) 12:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"This new "transorbital" lobotomy involved lifting the upper eyelid and placing the point of a thin surgical instrument (often called an orbitoclast or leucotome, although quite different from the wire loop leucotome described above) under the eyelid and against the top of the eyesocket. A mallet was used to drive the orbitoclast through the thin layer of bone and into the brain along the plane of the bridge of the nose, around fifteen degrees toward the interhemispherical fissure. The orbitoclast was mallated five centimetres into the frontal lobes, and then pivoted forty degrees at the orbit perforation so the tip cut toward the opposite side of the head (toward the nose). The instrument was returned to the neutral position and sent a further two centimetres into the brain, before being pivoted around twenty eight degrees each side, to cut outwards and again inwards (In a more radical variation at the end of the last cut described, the butt of the orbitoclast was forced upwards so the tool cut vertically down the side of the cortex of the interhemispherical fissure; the "Deep frontal cut".) All cuts were designed to transect the white fibrous matter connecting the cortical tissue of the prefrontal cortex to the thalamus. The leucotome was then withdrawn and the procedure repeated on the other side." FiachraByrne ( talk) 19:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't post your opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.221.233 ( talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
… I would like to recount the story of one of the lobtomized people whose records I have kept.
He was a young Normandy peasant, very attached to his land, who had suffered all his childhood from the tyranny of an alcoholic, emotionally disturbed father, who died during a delirium tremens crisis. Heir to the estate, the patient married and had three children. He was a relentless worker, and nothing interested him except the land and what he sowed and what came up. Although well-off, he lived frugally, and his wife used to say, ‘Sometimes I wonder whether he ever thinks about the children and me’.
One day he came back to the farm and without saying anything barricaded himself in his room. When urged to come out, he called out that he did not want to see his father any more. Later, following his admission to hospital with ea chronic hallucinatory psychosis, his story could be put together. One morning in a field, he had suddenly developed a pain in his back, and it took all his strength to straighten his spine – all too often stooped over. As he raised his eyes, there, in an apple tree, he saw his father sitting astride a branch, ordering him about and shouting abuse just as he used to. This had never stopped; he could see his father everywhere, speaking to him and insulting him. Only thirty-five years old, he had been a compulsory in-patient for four years. A psychiatrist at Sotteville-lès-Rouen had referred him to [the neurosurgeon] Puech after unsuccessfully trying electroconvulsive therapy and even a Sakel treatment [insulin coma therapy]. With great difficulty the patient’s young wife had taken over the running of the farm; wanting to try everything to get her husband better, she consented to a lobotomy on his behalf.
‘The Norman’, as he was called in the department, was operated upon by Puech, and apparently this was successful – so much so that when some London psychiatrists came to pay a visit it was decided to show them the patient. Given the task of making the presentation, I went to find him in his room and explained what was going to happen.
‘These are doctors interested in your case, and you are going to give them your story, your childhood with your father, then your marriage and the reappearance of your father, and finally, the operation and you feel about things now.’
I had made summaries as a framework for the presentation and explained to the Norman how I would ask him questions in front of our foreign colleagues. Everything had to go without any hitches, to give our visitors a favourable impression. Before leaving the room, I added, ‘Of course, you will say how you feel now, and especially that, since the operation, you don’t keep seeing your father anymore.’
At this point I caught a dubious pout on the Norman’s face which struck me as being odd, so I persevered. ‘You do understand, the important thing is to say that you don’t still have an apparition of your father following you everywhere, and stopping you working.’
The Norman didn’t answer. Anxiously, I asked, ‘You understand me? You still don’t see your father.'
Always slow in answering since the operation, but well enough oriented and adjusted, the Norman shook his head, ‘No doctor, that’s right. I don’t see him anymore. That’s true!'
He paused, then added, ‘But you see, I hear him.’
Dismayed, I stood frozen to the spot, and closed the door. In the consulting room Puech and his visitors from abroad were waiting for the wonderful demonstration of ‘hallucinolytic lobotomy’ [i.e. a lobotomy that would remove hallucinations]; and there I was with my good fellow who was now going to admit to auditory hallucinations. Everything was ruined, and the demonstration was going to turn into a disaster.
At the risk of losing all respect and credit from those reading these lines I will confess to the bargain I struck, and my deceitfulness. I got the Norman to sit on the edge of his bed and stood close to him.
‘You remember your four years of being held at Sotteville. You know that when you leave here it will be to go home, to your farm. Your wife and children are waiting for you. You agree with this?’
‘Oh yes!’ he replied, with a big smile.
‘Well, if you now say that you still hear your father, everything is mucked up – finished. Goodbye to the farm, your wife, your children. You’ll be readmitted and sent to the asylum till the end of your days.’
The Norman seemed surprised.
‘But, doctor, you haven’t understood me. I told you I still hear him, but now it doesn’t bother me.’
In this answer lies the essence of the good lobotomy result: lack of interest, loss of painful and distressing emotional drive from the psychological problem in question. Being a beginner in the speciality, and a sycophantic house physician to a powerful chief, instead of debating and analysing the significance of a comparative success, I wanted a complete cure. I insisted, ‘You simply must not say that you can still hear your father, otherwise you’ll be back in the asylum.’
The Norman understood my instructions and agreed not to mention his father’s voice.
When, shortly afterwards, after I had given his history, he was asked about his hallucinations, it was with immense assurance that he replied, ‘Since the operation, I don’t see my father any more. He has vanished.’ And turning to me he added, ‘And I assure you that I don’t hear him any more.’
The secret that bound us together was well kept. I saw the Norman again several times after he had gone back to his professional and family life. Everything went well and he had some more children. When he came to see me we never spoke about his father’s voice. I like to think that, like his visual appearances, it must have vanished.
— Extract: Jean Thuillier, Ten years that changed the face of mental illness, trans. Gordon Hickish (London, 1999), pp 8-9.
Jesus this page gets about 9k visits a day.
Ok - I've moved the Gottlieb section to the Psychosurgery article. It's not directly relevant here. Other sections in psychosurgery article will now have to be expanded as well now I think.
I'm going to change the title of the section Pioneers to History. The Moniz section will be retained as is for the moment. The Walter Freeman section is going to be split in two: the first will be the Freeman-Watts technique; the second will be Transorbital lobotomy.
A range of other surgical techniques were developed (rostral, topectomy, etc) and these should get a section which will describe the technique and the rationale underlying it.
So the idea here is to restructure the article more around the variety of procedures. These will retain reference to whatever theory lead to or more frequently followed the evolution of a novel procedure.
There's now a section called Indications and Outcomes. At the time I just inserted some quotes from a 1970s Dictionary of Psychiatry that I had lying around. I think I'll wipe the content of this section and start again. Any suggestions or contributions would be appreciated. FiachraByrne ( talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Image to be added, text - meh.
I found a dead reference link in the last sentence of the "Criticism" section and removed it, and was unable to find the referenced article elsewhere online (and it was in French anyway). The sentence itself may need to be rewritten as it essentially says that 15 psychosurgeries per year were performed at Mass General Hospital in 2001. 15 per year, in that one year? I also was unable to find another reference to support this claim, or any claim as to how often the hospital currently performs such surgeries. Maybe the article in general should be reference-checked as well. -- Kangabell ( talk) 22:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This article makes the massive assumption that the reader is already informed of the intended neurological outcome of the procedure.
DarkRabbitRevenge ( talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well there you go! If the article gave the impression that you just did in the outset then it would be a lot easier for "the lay" to understand a great many things about this disgusting act. I knew nothing but rumours about this procedure (which was nothing but "they put a hole in your head, and SOMETHING is relieved"... which was nothing at all), so when I arrived on this Wiki page I was under the impression that these Doctors actually had ONE SINGLE CLUE of what they were doing. Am I understood or am I just rambling? DarkRabbitRevenge ( talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If I look up "ECT", I get a relatively detailed explanation of the laws surrounding the practice. If I look up this article, "lobotomy", I don't get any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.248 ( talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
In the section Notable Cases the link for Rosemary Kennedy is unuseable. Link 55 leads to an online book with something like 300+ pages available for viewing except pages 271-273 which are blank and it says unavailable for viewing. The link 55 says to see page 271. Mylittlezach ( talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following section from the article for the moment. If I'm not mistaken it's attempting to show the effects of leucotomy/lobotomy based upon research on this patient in the mid-1980s? If that's so it's relevant but it needs a rewrite and, I think, the subheading should relate to something about the effects of the procedure rather than the name of these two researchers. Also it would need to contain a lot more research (it's a study of one patient, after all). FiachraByrne ( talk)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FiachraByrne ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
References
I'd like to change to change the citation style to a short footnoting system - sfn & harvnb. I'd also like to create a section in the bibliography for non paginated online sources, kind of like I'm doing here. Are there any objections to this? FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this recent edit by editor 87.67.18.206 FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
For example, lobotomy patients have difficulty putting themselves in the position of others because of decreased cognition and detachment from society.<ref name="Shutts1982">{{cite book|author=David Shutts|title=Lobotomy: resort to the knife|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=54BsAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=22 January 2013|year=1982|publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold|isbn=978-0-442-20252-1}}</ref> The popular conception of a lobotomee is of a zombielike person who has been left in a barely cognizant state by their unfortunate encounter with the surgeon's knife.<ref name="Doonan2003">{{cite book|author=Simon Doonan|title=Wacky Chicks: Life Lessons from Fearlessly Inappropriate and Fabulously Eccentric Women|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=048lZeUTlicC&pg=PA228|accessdate=22 January 2013|date=21 April 2003|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-0-7432-5459-5|pages=228–}}</ref>
I have found the following cognitive side effects. The IQ drop following a lobotomy is between 9.2 and 17 (for an individual with normal intelligence before the lobotomy). Normal intelligence is defined with an IQ above 90 as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart. The quote meets the rigid standards (scientific journal), however I don't know how to make a Wiki quote hence why I'm writing here. The book can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1955.tb00890.x/abstract Porteus refers to the Porteus maze test: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1956.6.3.135 "SOME COMMON‐SENSE IMPLICATIONS OF PSYCHOSURGERY SD Porteus - British Journal of Medical Psychology, 2011 - Wiley Online Library ... Individuals over 85 IQ in the Binet had an average decline of 9.2 IQ points after lobotomy while those under 85 IQ actually gained 2.6 points. In the Porteus those above 85 IQ in the Maze had an average decline of 17 IQ points, while those below 85 lost only 10 IQ points." 87.67.18.206 ( talk) 10:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Fleming, G. (1942). "Some preliminary remarks on prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 88 (371): 282.
Hutton, E.L. (1942). "The investigation of personality in patients treated by prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 88 (371): 275–81.
Strom-Olsen, R. (1943). "Results of prefrontal leucotomy in thirty cases of mental disorder". Journal of Mental Science. 89 (375): 165.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Meyer, A. (1945). "Neuropathological problems arising from prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 91 (385): 411.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Reitman, F. (1945). "Autonomic Responses in Prefrontal Leucotomy: Preliminary Report". Journal of Mental Science. 91 (384): 318.
Berliner, F. (1945-09-15). "Prefrontal leucotomy: report on 100 cases". Lancet. 246 (6368): 325–8.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Frank, J. (1946). "Clinical survey and results of 200 cases of prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 92 (388): 497.
Hutton, E. L. (1947). "Personality changes after leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 93 (390): 31.
Hutton, E. L. (1948). "The effect of leucotomy on creative personality". Journal of Mental Science. 94 (395): 322.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Garmany, G. (1948-04). "Personality Change and Prognosis after Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 94 (395): 428–438. doi: 10.1192/bjp.94.395.428. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)McLardy, T. (1949). "Anatomical correlates of improvement after leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 95 (398): 182.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Petrie, A. (1949-04). "Preliminary Report of Changes after Prefrontal Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 95 (399): 449–455. doi: 10.1192/bjp.95.399.449. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Rosie, J. M. (1949-04). "The Results of Prefrontal Leucotomy in 68 Patients Not Discharged from Hospital". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 95 (399): 431–448. doi: 10.1192/bjp.95.399.431. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Freudenberg, R. K. (1949-10). "Investigation into Intellectual Changes Following Prefrontal Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 95 (401): 826–841. doi: 10.1192/bjp.95.401.826. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Edwards, A. M (1950). "Preliminary Report on Transorbital Leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (405): 935.
Stengel, E. (1950). "A follow-up investigation of 330 cases treated by prefrontal leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (404): 633–62.
Freudenberg, R. K. (1950-01). "Experimental Studies on Frontal Lobe Functions in Monkeys in Relation to Leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 96 (402): 143–156. doi: 10.1192/bjp.96.402.143. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)Stengel, E. (1950-07-01). "A Follow-Up Investigation of 330 Cases Treated by Prefrontal Leucotomy". Journal of Mental Science. 96 (404): 633–62. doi: 10.1192/bjp.96.404.633.
Crown, S. (1951). "Psychological changes following prefrontal leucotomy; a review". Journal of Mental Science. 97 (406): 49. ISSN 0007-1250.
Crown, S. (1951-01). "Psychological Changes Following Prefrontal Leucotomy; A Review". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 97 (406): 49–83. doi: 10.1192/bjp.97.406.49. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Vidor, M. (1951-01). "Personality Changes Following Prefrontal Leucotomy as Reflected by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Results of Psychometric Testing". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 97 (406): 159–173. doi: 10.1192/bjp.97.406.159. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Klein, R. (1952). "Immediate Effects of Leucotomy on Cerebral Functions and their Significance: A Preliminary Report". Journal of Mental Science. 98 (410): 60.
Stengel, E. (1952). "The Patients' Attitudes to Leucotomy and its Effects". Journal of Mental Science. 98 (412): 382.
Klein, R. (1952-01). "Immediate Effects of Leucotomy on Cerebral Functions and their Significance: A Preliminary Report". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 98 (410): 60–65. doi: 10.1192/bjp.98.410.60. ISSN 0007-1250. Retrieved 2011-08-09.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Kostic, Slobodan (1953-10-01). "Experiences and Results in Prefrontal Leucotomy: A Clinical Study of 339 Leucotomized Patients". Journal of Mental Science. 99 (417): 786–95. doi: 10.1192/bjp.99.417.786.
Pippard, J. (1955). "Personality changes after rostral leucotomy: a comparison with standard prefrontal leucotomy". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 101 (425): 774. ISSN 0007-1250.
Pippard, John (1955-10-01). "Second Leucotomies". Journal of Mental Science. 101 (425): 788–793. doi: 10.1192/bjp.101.425.788.
Pippard, John (1955-10-01). "Rostral Leucotomy: A Report on 240 Cases Personally Followed up After 11/2 to 5 Years". Journal of Mental Science. 101 (425): 756–73. doi: 10.1192/bjp.101.425.756.
Costello, C.G. (1956-07). "The effects of prefrontal leucotomy upon visual imagery and the ability to perform complex operations". Journal of Mental Science. 102 (428): 507–16. ISSN 1097-0088.
{{ cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)Robin, A. A. (1958). "A Retrospective Controlled Study of Leucotomy in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders". Journal of Mental Science. 104 (437): 1025.
Thorpe, F. T. (1958). "An evaluation of prefrontal leucotomy in the affective disorders of old age: A follow-up study". Journal of Mental Science. 104 (435): 403.
The modern papers on changes consequent to lobotomy:
Jasper, HH (1995). "A historical perspective. The rise and fall of prefrontal lobotomy". Adv Neurol. (66): 97–114. PMID 7771315.
Benson, DF; Stuss, DT; Naeser, MA; Weir, WS; Kaplan, EF; Levine, HL (1981). "Long-term effects of prefrontal leucotomy--an overview of neuropsychologic residuals". J Clin Neuropsychol. 3 (1): 13–32. PMID 7276194.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)Stuss, DT; Kaplan, EF; Benson, DF; Weir, WS; Naeser, MA; Levine, HL (1981). "Long-term effects of prefrontal leucotomy". Arch Neurol. 38 (3): 165–9. PMID 7469849.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)
-- Psychiatrick ( talk) 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It is assumed that the transection of white substance of the frontal lobes impairs their connection with the thalamus and eliminates the possibility to receive from it stimuli which lead to irritation and on the whole derange mental functions. This explanation is mechanistic and goes back to the narrow localizationism characteristic of psychiatrists of America, from where leucotomy was imported to us.
Предполагается, что перерезка белого вещества лобных долей нарушает их связи с зрительным бугром и устраняет возможность поступления из него стимулов, приводящих к возбуждению и вообще расстраивающих психические функции. Это объяснение механистично и уходит своими корнями к узкому локализационизму, свойственному психиатрам Америки, откуда и перенесена к нам лейкотомия.
The paper by Gilyarovsky proved to be enough to stop the practice of lobotomy in the Soviet Union for years to come.-- Psychiatrick ( talk) 02:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) --
Psychiatrick (
talk)
14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have the Selected Works by Gilyarovsky in Russian. The book contains the information that lobotomy was banned in the USSR on the initiative of Gilyarovsky.
In the Don hospital, V.А. Gilyarovsky introduced new methods of active therapy. It is no exaggeration to say that this hospital applied all types of therapy except for leucotomy, of which he had always disapproved. It is known that this type of treatment was banned in the USSR on the initiative of V.А. Gilyarovsky. (Gilyarovsky, V.А. (1973). Selected Works. Moscow: Medicine. p. 4 [in Russian])
В Донской лечебнице В. А. Гиляровский внедрил новые методы активной терапии. Не будет преувеличением сказать, что в этой больнице применялись все виды терапии, за исключением лейкотомии, к которой он всегда относился отрицательно. Как известно, этот вид лечения был запрещен в СССР по инициативе В. А. Гиляровского. (Гиляровский В.А. Избранные труды. — Москва: Медицина, 1973. — С. 4.)
-- Psychiatrick ( talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. I have a few more questions as, on the basis of a very cursory search, I can't find anything substantive on lobotomy in the USSR based on English language sources (actually, the only country which is really adequately covered in the sources is the US; everything else is pretty fragmented). When was lobotomy first introduced into the USSR? Is it known how many operations were performed before the 1950 ban? How long did the ban remain in place before lobotomy/psychosurgery was reintroduced? FiachraByrne ( talk) 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) --
Psychiatrick (
talk)
23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
No, Valenstein is already quoting the 40,000 figure in 1973 [5]. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). It cites this publication in support: Kaplan AD, Lambre J, Veppo AA: "Bimedial lobotomy in the treatment of pain." Second International Congress of Neurosurgery, Washington DC, 1961.
FiachraByrne (
talk)
12:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note that currently the article contains two things added by the 87 IP editor that I don't think are appropriate:
I have already reverted these items once, and it is my policy never to repeat-revert the same material, so I'll have to leave these to others to deal with. Looie496 ( talk) 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
FiachraByrne (
talk)
01:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm adding this at this point on the page because to some extent it follows from the immediately previous section. Hats off to BiancaFern ;) for taking the axe to the pop culture material. I had a very unpleasant time abt 2 years ago trying to get rid of the Shutter Island baloney and finally gave up.
In the context of another article, I proposed a standard for inclusion of pop culture material which, to my astonishment, not only gained unanimous consensus but actually converted someone who had proposed mention of a certain fictional work to the point of view that doing so would not, after all, be appropriate. (Some of you may have read about this historically unique achievement in connection with my having been nominated for the Nobel Prize for it.) Anyway, here (slightly tweaked) is what I proposed:
Later in the discussion (linked here: Talk:Lizzie Borden/Archive 2#popcult_discussion) I gave examples:
Do others think such a standard could be usefully applied in this article?
EEng ( talk) 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in title only, movies, shows, books that revolve around the topic at least in part, but no information should be given outside a brief description. ie. "sucker punch follows a girl who is undergoing a lobotomy and slips into a fantasy world before the procedure is completed." or "planet of the apes has a character suffering the effects after a lobotomy was performed" for more on the plot reader can view the wiki for that title. we cant just erase fiction, its part of our existance and deserves a place. tag the section "fictional works around lobotomy" or similar. Kevintampa5 ( talk) 19:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That all sounds like a sane enough standard for what gets included; which, I guess excludes the obvious Pink Floyd quote - surprisingly absent from the TVTropes page - "You raise the blade, you make the change, you rearrange me 'til I'm 'sane'; you lock the door - and throw away the key - there's someone in my head, but it's not me." Historically too late to have influenced public perception against the procedure, though it articulates well the aghast view once it was over. 84.215.40.194 ( talk) 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record I've added
<!-- and that includes "Sucker Punch" -- DO NOT ADD /// SUCKER PUNCH // -- see Talk -->
to the warning in the "Portrayals" section about inappropriate additions. If anyone objects (i.e. the film has worthwhile elements we've overlooked) then let's discuss. EEng ( talk) 13:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)