This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Walter Jackson Freeman II be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is absolutely horrifying to read. 69.129.36.131 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
We state that Freeman lost his medical license when a patient died. I'm finding several sources that state that he only lost surgical priviledges at a hospital. -- Pak aran 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There is another eminent neuroscientist/biologist/philosopher named Walter J Freeman. I added a note at the bottom so people will not be confused if looking up this person
"Because Freeman lost his license to perform surgery himself after his last patient died on the operating table, he enlisted neurosurgeon James Watts as a research partner.[8]" Under the "lobotomy" section, this statement appears. However, according to this source (Washingtonian), he didn't lose his license until 1967, not back in the 30s or 40s.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/14/first-lobotomy-us-happened-george-washington-university/
2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (
talk)
16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The article states Freeman gave up the ice pick in favor of the leucotome, before eventually developing the orbitoclast. My understanding is that the leucotome was never used in the transorbital procedures, so I don't think it is accurate to say he used it in place of the ice pick. The leucotome was similar to a coring knife and was used in the earlier lobotomy procedure pioneered by Moniz. It was designed to penetrate completely through the patient's brain, then a wire loop could be extended and the instrument rotated about the long axis in order to cut tissue.
I believe the content of the article has confused some details of the two very different lobotomy procedures used by Freeman. The earlier procedure, pioneered by Moniz, was more invasive and required a trained surgeon. In this earlier procedure a hole was drilled on opposite sides of the skull, then the leucotome was passed in one hole and out the other, going completely through the brain. The cases of instruments breaking off in patients' brains occurred when Freeman added sweeping motions to this procedure.
The other procedure more immediately associated with Freeman was the transorbital procedure, the so-called ice pick lobotomy. I don't believe there were any cases of instruments breaking off during this procedure, nor was the leucotome ever used in this type of lobotomy.
Since I don't have any definitive sources in front of me, and because my recollection might very well be incorrect, I've refrained from making any changes to the article. I read excerpts from Freeman's own papers where he described the earlier procedure in detail, but I can't seem to find them now. I believe they were posted on www.lobotomy.info, but that site seems to be down. Can anyone clear this up? 71.75.170.119 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've created a starter page on Watts. Please help flesh it out with any information and references you have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SquareWave ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Did Freeman ever use a real, kitchen icepick on a living person? "The Lobotomist" says he used one on a cadaver, but it doesn't say whether he got a bona fide surgical instrument before his first live patient.
I think it is interesting how Freeman justified cutting both sides at once. He gave three reasons: Having two leucotomes in the brain at once keeps the brain from moving laterally inside the skull during the sweeping, cutting movement - one leucotome serves as the anchor while the other cuts. Inserting them simultaneously ensures the lesions are symmetrical (I can't see how symmetry is all that important, if you can't even see what you're cutting). And finally, it makes the procedure faster (like it needed to be any faster. One observer said it took Freeman six minutes a patient, including the time to snap before and after photos).
All that said, I think Freeman had very good intentions. He was very misguided, though, and he thought he was going to cure the world of mental illness and become famous for doing so. Fluoborate ( talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". I find this blase analysis of a man who was NOT a surgeon and yet performed surgery at $25.00 a pop on the brain for Godssake in mental institutions crowded with people who could NOT fight back absolutely disgusting. Any achievement which this article does not adequately document was grossly eclipsed by the tremendous harm he did to people. He would have been quite at home in Auschwitz working alongside Mengele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 ( talk) 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like a part of a horror novel and sounds like a horror movie. This Dr. Freeman is just using people as guinea pigs. Perhaps this Dr. Freeman was insane. There is no mention of Dr. Freeman's mentality and own sanity in this article. He sounds like a monster.
2600:1700:4260:35D0:507E:1B68:BBF3:93D3 (
talk)
09:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Several "inflamitory" sections have been removed. Such as this one:
However, this quote is for the most part accurate. Perhaps there should be a "Criticisms" section to park stuff like this? Proxy User ( talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be renamed "Walter Freeman (neurologist)"? After all, he was not a surgeon (even in modern medicine, not all who perform surgeries are surgeons). I'm not sure if there is any evidence that he later trained as a surgeon? -- Jade0970 ( talk) 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed he wasn't a surgeon and never became one. That's why he worked with Watts (who was a surgeon) early in his career, and also why his "new" technique (transorbital lobotomy) was so revolutionary--it didn't require a surgeon to perform it. The article should be renamed. 75.164.208.6 ( talk) 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This man ruined countless lives with his irresponsible and brutal ice pick practices. Surely this needs to be addressed. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 14:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
When, exactly, did Freeman use the word "lobotomobile"? The citation only leads to a third-hand source. Researcher Jack Al-Hai claims here the word was coined in a biography by David Shutt, more than a decade after Freeman's death. It appears to be another urban legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.19.147 ( talk) 03:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.pbs.org/video/american-experience-the-lobotomist-preview/
From Story Corps on PBS: https://storycorps.org/stories/my-lobotomy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:507E:1B68:BBF3:93D3 ( talk) 10:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
While I do not question the mention of a popular name for a medical procedure in a WP article, I do question its persistent use in the article, when the formal terms needed are both known and readily available. I therefore request, first, that the "ice pick" reference be very carefully referenced, establishing both its origins and pervasiveness, expanding upon that as necessary in a separate non-lead paragraph or section (to justify its limited use in the article), and then that the actual term for the surgical instrument, orbitoclast, be exchanged for the inaccurate/imprecise persistent references to "ice picks".
Otherwise, when we choose ourselves to only use the popular language of detractors—rather than use the clinical language of the field about which we are reporting, and only then report on its descriptions, both negative and positive, by others—we creep into editorializing rather than encyclopedic writing. (We are to report the accolades and abhorrence of others, but not our own perceptions and feelings on the matter.)
Furthermore, with regard to tone and NPOV, we have to take caution against being naive present-ists in our perception and description of this individual and the practices he applied (and promoted; see WP:PRESENTISM). Recall that every active agent, medical or otherwise, is a product of their times.
In this regard it is noteworthy that the work of Freeman on the transorbital approach in 1946 was preceded by a decade of surgical work of the same type, by him and many others, globally, beginning with that of Portuguese neurophysician António Egas Moniz, and that Moniz was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1949 (E.g., see https://www.britannica.com/science/lobotomy).
That is to say, the introduction of the transorbital-orbitoclast procedure came in a time when, despite American reservations, global medical perspective on such interventions, pre-thorazine, was supportive, if not adulatory. For a balanced perspective on this, see Prof Miriam Posner's 11th Annual James H. Cassedy Memorial Lecture in the History of Medicine given at the NLM ( https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=29010&bhcp=1).
Bottom line, we can present modern scholarly perspectives (not our own) that express horror over past surgical practices. But to do so only, and to ignore comtemporary perspective, and scholarship such as that of Posner that reflects such perspective, is indeed to violate NPOV, though not in the way suggested in the Talk, above. 2601:246:C700:F5:497A:5B02:19F3:2CBF ( talk) 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Under 'Medical Practice' there is the claim that "Freeman's name gained popularity despite the widespread criticism of his methods following a lobotomy on President John F. Kennedy's sister Rosemary Kennedy, which left her with severe mental and physical disability."
Reading over the source of this, it appears that Rosemary Kennedy was only named as a victim of the procedure, but per [3] https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/rosemary-kennedy-jfk-sister, which is cited on Rosemary Kennedy's Wikipedia page, her lobotomy became public knowledge in 1987. Thus, her lobotomy could not have been widely criticized at the time. 2600:1700:4E7A:740F:E2DA:CC72:2AD6:160C ( talk) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Walter Jackson Freeman II be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is absolutely horrifying to read. 69.129.36.131 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
We state that Freeman lost his medical license when a patient died. I'm finding several sources that state that he only lost surgical priviledges at a hospital. -- Pak aran 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There is another eminent neuroscientist/biologist/philosopher named Walter J Freeman. I added a note at the bottom so people will not be confused if looking up this person
"Because Freeman lost his license to perform surgery himself after his last patient died on the operating table, he enlisted neurosurgeon James Watts as a research partner.[8]" Under the "lobotomy" section, this statement appears. However, according to this source (Washingtonian), he didn't lose his license until 1967, not back in the 30s or 40s.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/14/first-lobotomy-us-happened-george-washington-university/
2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (
talk)
16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The article states Freeman gave up the ice pick in favor of the leucotome, before eventually developing the orbitoclast. My understanding is that the leucotome was never used in the transorbital procedures, so I don't think it is accurate to say he used it in place of the ice pick. The leucotome was similar to a coring knife and was used in the earlier lobotomy procedure pioneered by Moniz. It was designed to penetrate completely through the patient's brain, then a wire loop could be extended and the instrument rotated about the long axis in order to cut tissue.
I believe the content of the article has confused some details of the two very different lobotomy procedures used by Freeman. The earlier procedure, pioneered by Moniz, was more invasive and required a trained surgeon. In this earlier procedure a hole was drilled on opposite sides of the skull, then the leucotome was passed in one hole and out the other, going completely through the brain. The cases of instruments breaking off in patients' brains occurred when Freeman added sweeping motions to this procedure.
The other procedure more immediately associated with Freeman was the transorbital procedure, the so-called ice pick lobotomy. I don't believe there were any cases of instruments breaking off during this procedure, nor was the leucotome ever used in this type of lobotomy.
Since I don't have any definitive sources in front of me, and because my recollection might very well be incorrect, I've refrained from making any changes to the article. I read excerpts from Freeman's own papers where he described the earlier procedure in detail, but I can't seem to find them now. I believe they were posted on www.lobotomy.info, but that site seems to be down. Can anyone clear this up? 71.75.170.119 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've created a starter page on Watts. Please help flesh it out with any information and references you have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SquareWave ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Did Freeman ever use a real, kitchen icepick on a living person? "The Lobotomist" says he used one on a cadaver, but it doesn't say whether he got a bona fide surgical instrument before his first live patient.
I think it is interesting how Freeman justified cutting both sides at once. He gave three reasons: Having two leucotomes in the brain at once keeps the brain from moving laterally inside the skull during the sweeping, cutting movement - one leucotome serves as the anchor while the other cuts. Inserting them simultaneously ensures the lesions are symmetrical (I can't see how symmetry is all that important, if you can't even see what you're cutting). And finally, it makes the procedure faster (like it needed to be any faster. One observer said it took Freeman six minutes a patient, including the time to snap before and after photos).
All that said, I think Freeman had very good intentions. He was very misguided, though, and he thought he was going to cure the world of mental illness and become famous for doing so. Fluoborate ( talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". I find this blase analysis of a man who was NOT a surgeon and yet performed surgery at $25.00 a pop on the brain for Godssake in mental institutions crowded with people who could NOT fight back absolutely disgusting. Any achievement which this article does not adequately document was grossly eclipsed by the tremendous harm he did to people. He would have been quite at home in Auschwitz working alongside Mengele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 ( talk) 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like a part of a horror novel and sounds like a horror movie. This Dr. Freeman is just using people as guinea pigs. Perhaps this Dr. Freeman was insane. There is no mention of Dr. Freeman's mentality and own sanity in this article. He sounds like a monster.
2600:1700:4260:35D0:507E:1B68:BBF3:93D3 (
talk)
09:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Several "inflamitory" sections have been removed. Such as this one:
However, this quote is for the most part accurate. Perhaps there should be a "Criticisms" section to park stuff like this? Proxy User ( talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be renamed "Walter Freeman (neurologist)"? After all, he was not a surgeon (even in modern medicine, not all who perform surgeries are surgeons). I'm not sure if there is any evidence that he later trained as a surgeon? -- Jade0970 ( talk) 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed he wasn't a surgeon and never became one. That's why he worked with Watts (who was a surgeon) early in his career, and also why his "new" technique (transorbital lobotomy) was so revolutionary--it didn't require a surgeon to perform it. The article should be renamed. 75.164.208.6 ( talk) 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This man ruined countless lives with his irresponsible and brutal ice pick practices. Surely this needs to be addressed. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 14:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
When, exactly, did Freeman use the word "lobotomobile"? The citation only leads to a third-hand source. Researcher Jack Al-Hai claims here the word was coined in a biography by David Shutt, more than a decade after Freeman's death. It appears to be another urban legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.19.147 ( talk) 03:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.pbs.org/video/american-experience-the-lobotomist-preview/
From Story Corps on PBS: https://storycorps.org/stories/my-lobotomy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:507E:1B68:BBF3:93D3 ( talk) 10:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
While I do not question the mention of a popular name for a medical procedure in a WP article, I do question its persistent use in the article, when the formal terms needed are both known and readily available. I therefore request, first, that the "ice pick" reference be very carefully referenced, establishing both its origins and pervasiveness, expanding upon that as necessary in a separate non-lead paragraph or section (to justify its limited use in the article), and then that the actual term for the surgical instrument, orbitoclast, be exchanged for the inaccurate/imprecise persistent references to "ice picks".
Otherwise, when we choose ourselves to only use the popular language of detractors—rather than use the clinical language of the field about which we are reporting, and only then report on its descriptions, both negative and positive, by others—we creep into editorializing rather than encyclopedic writing. (We are to report the accolades and abhorrence of others, but not our own perceptions and feelings on the matter.)
Furthermore, with regard to tone and NPOV, we have to take caution against being naive present-ists in our perception and description of this individual and the practices he applied (and promoted; see WP:PRESENTISM). Recall that every active agent, medical or otherwise, is a product of their times.
In this regard it is noteworthy that the work of Freeman on the transorbital approach in 1946 was preceded by a decade of surgical work of the same type, by him and many others, globally, beginning with that of Portuguese neurophysician António Egas Moniz, and that Moniz was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1949 (E.g., see https://www.britannica.com/science/lobotomy).
That is to say, the introduction of the transorbital-orbitoclast procedure came in a time when, despite American reservations, global medical perspective on such interventions, pre-thorazine, was supportive, if not adulatory. For a balanced perspective on this, see Prof Miriam Posner's 11th Annual James H. Cassedy Memorial Lecture in the History of Medicine given at the NLM ( https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=29010&bhcp=1).
Bottom line, we can present modern scholarly perspectives (not our own) that express horror over past surgical practices. But to do so only, and to ignore comtemporary perspective, and scholarship such as that of Posner that reflects such perspective, is indeed to violate NPOV, though not in the way suggested in the Talk, above. 2601:246:C700:F5:497A:5B02:19F3:2CBF ( talk) 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Under 'Medical Practice' there is the claim that "Freeman's name gained popularity despite the widespread criticism of his methods following a lobotomy on President John F. Kennedy's sister Rosemary Kennedy, which left her with severe mental and physical disability."
Reading over the source of this, it appears that Rosemary Kennedy was only named as a victim of the procedure, but per [3] https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/rosemary-kennedy-jfk-sister, which is cited on Rosemary Kennedy's Wikipedia page, her lobotomy became public knowledge in 1987. Thus, her lobotomy could not have been widely criticized at the time. 2600:1700:4E7A:740F:E2DA:CC72:2AD6:160C ( talk) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)