Talk:Lobotomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lobotomy article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Bilateral cingulotomy

Removed

Bilateral cingulotomy is a modern psychosurgical technique which has superseded the lobotomy.

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 completely agree and I am glad to hear someone else say this. Reading down the list of topics, these terms seem to have confused many people, even with the section removed. 70.59.146.117 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Issues

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)

The anonymous user which posted this is clearly without any idea of what lobotomy employs, and evidently aren't even able to read the article he comments on. Cutting away a large piece of the frontal part of the brain is NOT a good idea. My admittedly very coarse understanding of the brain have given me the understanding that this is the most important part of what constitute one's "self" and one's "I" - the free will and all that. Trying to alleviate any illness by plain and simply cutting away a large part of the brain, and such a central part, should be considered extremely close to murder. The frontal part of the brain dies and is transported away by the lymphatic system - leading to a brain looking like the image in this article where the prefrontal parts are simply cut off. Furthermore, I think that the lobotomy procedure and its ugly history is even worse than what is described in the article: There was done very little after-procedure examinations and statistics on the victims, and no real scientific work was ever carried out to check the actual consequences. Of course, the whole field of psychology was very immature and without much understanding of what actually is going on in the brain - but even then, this whole part of the history of psychology should be considered by everyone as a butchery on the patients. Stolsvik (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the pov tag put in place by the anonymous editor. This topic is not under dispute, nor should it be. Lobotomies, in most cases, cause irreperable harm to the subject. The person who put that tag on the article not only said nothing to bolster his case, (such as in what cases a lobotomy is needed) but he has not said anything about it fcr nearly two weeks. There is obviously no dipute here. Primium mobile (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, everyone on Wikipedia is a doctor. Pah. Agreed, gents - lobotomies are far more horrifying than any article could possibly convey. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I moved Leukotomy here. This is the most common name for the procedure. Lengis 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge: Lobotomy and Psychosurgery

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)

No. Regardless of what this article talks about, psychosurgery is the more general term and Lobotomy should be merged into it, if any merge happens at all. I think they're fine being separate. - L'postrophi 20:05, 21 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)

  • Don't merge - I'm with L'postrophi here. --Jambalaya 16:38, 7 October 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)

I agree with the above comment - don't merge (or, if you must, merge lobotomy into psychosurgery). Psychosurgery covers everything from Egas Moniz via Freeman-Watts to the operations that are still being done today - cingulotomies, capsulotomies etc. The psychosurgery article does at least have a paragraph on present-day operations. The problem with lobotomy is that, while some people are prepared to call present-day operations lobotomies, some people think the term should only be used for the Freeman-Watts standard operation or the Freeman transorbital operation. So you get people saying things like "lobotomies haven't been done since the 1970s". There is no such confusion with the term psychosurgery. Also (a minor point perhaps) lobotomy is an American term; in Britain identical operations were called leucotomies.Staug73 08:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lobotomy is too notable. It must have its own article. SakotGrimshine 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article should be expanded

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)

The article states that the procedure causes major personality changes, and that it was concluded that, in the majority of cases, the result was positive.
I would like to see more information about the nature of these changes, and how they were positive, added to the article. Zuiram 18:21, 22 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!

Agreed entirely, theres virtually nothing about the process, impact, reasons for, failures etc of lobotomies at all. Definitely needs expansion! Thedreamdied 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobotomy and the Invisible Man

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.

[edit] Changing the "Popular Culture" section

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)

That's okay by me, it was getting long. But as there has been some recent interest in this section, I've reinstated all the original text on a separate page Lobotomy in Popular Culture. DavidCooke 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! --Jambalaya 01:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly most of those music references need to go but at the very least One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest should be mentioned Ball of pain 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This section looks awfully long for the text to have been moved to a different page. I'm going to reduce the musical references - there is too much about popular culture and not enough about what happened in the procedure.--Parkwells 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leucotomy is DIFFERENT from Lobotomy

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)

I am familiar with the history of the lobotomy. You are right, but to me this is just semantics as today it is generally accepted that the term "lobotomy" is an umbrella term encompassing all varying techniques (whether done trans-orbitally with an 'ice-pick' or otherwise). Even though the methods are different, it is also generally accepted that the term merely "changed" along with the method, and they are looked upon as being similar enough--in purpose, end result, and even procedure--to qualify under the same term.
I should add that I have not read the article here, so this response is not in defense of anything that may be inaccurate about its content. 70.59.146.117 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IGAS means?

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)

From what I can see in the reference section (ref 4) in the source given in the paragraph, IGAS seems to be a journal. It shouldn't link to a TV Show therefore I unlinked it. --Ben T/C 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Howard Dully: July 3 2007

[edit] Since I underwent a transorbital Lobotomy

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.

[edit] For the record

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)

Death was not avoided--some patients did die during or shortly after the procedure. 70.59.146.117 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (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)

Square, I like the point you make. I've thought about the lobotomy much--it haunts me--and in this thinking I've not failed to wonder which of today's practices will be considered utterly and categorically inhumane, 100 years from now... 70.59.146.117 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 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)

Your comments are all very interesting but just to point out--this may be just the reason that lobotomies are no longer practiced in most developed countries. Don't point me over to Cingulotomy or Psychosurgery--I'd advise everyone to research these procedures (via scientific journals, not blogs or articles by Joe Shmoe) before beginning to consider all of these terms as interchangeable. Many factors must be taken into consideration with the psychosurgical practices of today. It was much different back in Freeman's time when anybody could bring in their 'annoying' ten-year-old kid and request that a 'blind' lobotomy be performed. Not to be misunderstood here, in my opinion, the lobotomy is the greatest tragedy that the psychiatric field has ever known. Let's just not get too misinformed or freaked out before we're aware of all facts. 70.59.146.117 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 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)

[edit] intro

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)

Dude, it's like cutting of the arm and the leg, and then gouge out the eye. But probably actually worse than that. It is SO EXTREMELY DISGUSTING to think about this rape and butchery of persons (You effectively kill the "I" and "self" of the person with this nice little routine, which with the efficient ice-pick improvements could be performed on up to 12 patients per day in a hospital, up from only 4 with the older technique - check the references, in particular those for Norway!). And to consider that this also was done on people that was forcefully put into such hospitals - it makes me worse than sick, and very angry. Stolsvik (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the barbarism of the procedure is self-evident. Though, apparently, some people back in the day didn't share that opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneers of Lobotomy

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)

[edit] Clouded Eyes?

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)

It is fiction. 70.59.146.117 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening statement is false

"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)

[edit] What about Moniz himself?

Did he get lobotomised? Or was he just a hypocritic bastard? Siúnrá (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was the purported mechanism of efficacy?

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)

I can't tell if you are asking this rhetorically or not, but I'll go ahead with this anyway. Keep in mind I haven't read this specific article, so if I repeat something, then that's that.
The reasons for lobotomy "evolved" over time. It really depends on who you ask but theories for why the lobotomy was performed early on range from innocent (for example, wanting to help someone with emotional disturbances after which good results were reported not only by the doctors but even by the lobotomized themselves), to more disturbing theories (e.g., hospital staff were just sick of dealing with annoying, unruly, disturbed mental patients and this was a way of shutting them up, so to speak). In either case, I suppose, the lobotomy served to 'calm' them.
The operation was performed "blindly"--and that accounts for the difference in the results. If you look at Dully, a well-known survivor of the Freeman lobotomy (see the links at the bottom of the article), and you listen to him speak, you'll see that, on objective examination, he turned out relatively 'fine' when compared to, say, Rosemary Kennedy. Obvious to us at least now is that you can't just stick an ice pick into someone's brain, swirl it around, and always expect to get the same result--you don't know what you're hitting. Understandably, some suffered far more damage than others.
As lobotomies became more popular--as far as the United States goes--the procedure expanded to include a much broader definition of what could be considered 'emotional disturbance'. In Dully's case, if I recall, his mother took him in to get lobotomized because he wouldn't follow her rules, was hyperactive and undisciplined--or something of that sort. From what it appears, Dully seems he was merely being an average kid but his mother was tired or incapable of dealing with the task of disciplining the boy. We don't know for sure, but any rate, I often think about what the implications might be were the lobotomy to be "in style" today: all the kids we have on Ritalin would be standing in line for lobotomies instead. That is the impression one gets when reading about how liberal the doctors seemingly became regarding upon whom they performed the surgery, and for what reason. 70.59.146.117 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This still doesn't explain what the theoretical (hypothetical if you like) mechanisms of why it was supposed to be effective, only the reasons why it was used. For instance, take Ritalin, a product I know is over-prescribed and longitudinal studies (long term) have yet to be done and I know *why* it's over-prescribed. But see the section called "Mode of Action" at Ritalin which describes some of the purported reasons it is supposed to be effective. And that is what is lacking on this page and it is out of my skill level to provide that. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:39, 30 April 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. Homebuilding207.178.98.26 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try not to forget that. And don't forget that this isn't a blog and that:

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 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)

[edit] Rewrite of cultural references

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)

My opinion is that it isn't notable -- the use of the lobotomy wasn't to comment on the procedure per se but more as a plot device. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:25, 30 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)


[edit] Purpose of lobotomy ?

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)

I guess the lobotomy was intended for the person to cease doing things they weren't supposed to do. If they were crazy, then the lobotomy made them stop acting crazy. If they were depressed, the lobotomy stopped them from being depressed. The problem was, it also made them stop doing anything else for that matter. Turned them into a vegetable. ScienceApe (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)