Talk:Rosemary Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Copyvio

Large portions of this article seem to have been copied from the CNN obituary. It would appear to be violating copyright.

I think I removed all the plagiarized stuff - it was added by a single anonymous user. Do you see any other copied text? Rhobite 18:25, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death

How did she die? --NoPetrol 01:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Natural causes, states the article. Most probably old age, seeing as how she was close to 90 years old.

[edit] Lobotomy

"Tragically, the operation did not have the intended effect." What other effect might have been expected from a prefrontal lobotomy other than reducing the subject to, in Freeman's words, "the level of a domestic invalid or household pet"? Gazpacho 13:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added a reference that explains that point. Medical knowledge back then was, not surprisingly, far behind what we know now. It seems that Joseph Kennedy based on his decision on bad advice from the experts about the effect of the operation. JamesMLane 07:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There is something self-contradictory here: "bad advice"?? They gave the best advice that they knew how at the time, rather than any kind of negligent or pernacious advice. Remember that they simply didn't know back then, and don't contradict yourself. DAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.82.139 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Father

Let's be totally honest here: Joe Kennedy didn't want an embarassment in his family and never expected the results of the labotomy to be any different. The man helped piss half of Europe away to Hitler so that he could turn a dollar with more ease. His daughter's health, happiness, and life could not compare to this megalomaniac's desire for power and the advancement of his sons. Joe Kennedy was a true American monster and it is time we stopped appologizing for him and his brood.

Why is garbage like the above paragraph even allowed on Wikipedia? This is revisionism, and revisionism is almost always a lie.--SN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.202.16 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

I agree - this is no place for revisionist history and searching for ulterior motives and conspiracies everywhere. He was simply doing the best he could with the limited knowledge that they had back then.

In Nigel Hamilton's biography of John F. Kennedy, "JFK: Reckless Youth", Hamilton made allegations that Rosemary was sexually molested by her father.

Oh, sure. Remember, authors can write any bit of garbage about dead public figures because nobody can sue on their behalf. Ninety percent of what is out there about the Kennedys is pure, unadulterated garbage motivated by a political agenda to discredit a family still held in high esteem. It's amazing how stupid and gullible people are.--SN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.202.16 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

That makes a lot of sense, that she was depressed and agitated because of a stressful event such as abuse.

Oh, give us a break and quit acting stupid and gullible. A significant number of children are/were born retarded due to either damage during their births, or genetic damage that they were conceived with. Lots of them have emotional problems, too, as a result. Read up on it, and also, try to imagine the frustration of being the retarded one in a big family of normal children - and in fact, a whole society.

I'm looking for photos of Rosemary Kennedy after her lobotomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.105.128 (talk • contribs) 6 Nov 2005

[edit] Joe Kennedy shattered?

Unless someone can state the biographer and work, this line should be deleted. I can't find it. "Biographers have reported that her father was shattered by the results of the operation."

[edit] Restoring NPOV

Here's why I'm reverting the latest changes:

I don't think the "shortly after" sentence is accurate, but, even if it is, there's no purpose to the juxtaposition here other than to convey a POV about Joseph Kennedy's motivations.
Joseph Kennedy consulted with a neurologist. What he was told is relevant to this article, in explaining the circumstances under which the lobotomy was performed. The anon has deleted this information, presumably because it makes Kennedy's decision seem more reasonable and thus undermines the anon's anti-Kennedy agenda. What was later alleged or established about Freeman is not relevant to this article, but the anon has inserted it, again for no purpose but the smear job.

I'll also point out that, knowing that any Kennedy-related article would be likely attract this kind of POV editing, I provided a citation for the statement that the anon deleted. JamesMLane 01:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not POV to mention that she was lobotomized shortly after she was introduced and stumbled at a royal appearance. If it reflects negatively on Joe Kennedy, its left to the reader to conclude that. JamesMLane's pro-Kennedy politician POV editing is non-stop and appears on several Kennedy sites.--66.176.129.11 12:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The POV, as I pointed out, is in the juxtaposition. "Mayor Jones was accused of embezzling city funds. The next day he resigned from office." Both those statements could be true, but if the accusation came from a known crackpot, who advanced no evidence, and the mayor's resignation was on his doctor's advice following a heart attack, then the juxtaposition of truthful statements creates a false impression. JamesMLane 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly true that bad implications can be forwarded by pure juxtaposition of (descriptions of) events that might not even be related to each other. That's a fact. Also, in real life, there are lots of things that happen that are just coincidences, and don't have anything to do with one another. It is a failure of our educational system not to point out and to emphasize this fact. Of course, lots of people would consider that to be anti-religious: believers want to believe that things are "the will of God" - but when actually, they are just coincidences.

[edit] Antiseptics

Is there a source for the claim that Freeman did not believe in antiseptics? In any case, how is it relevant to Rosemary Kennedy? There is no statement that infection was involved in her deterioration. It is relevant to Freeman in establishing that he was a quack, but it is not relevant to Rosemary Kennedy. Robert McClenon 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You continue to ignore sources and citation. The source is there: "Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness" (Basic Books, 1986). If you type in lobotomy and freeman and antiseptic, you will find several others. \ The lack of antiseptic would be pretty significant if you had an operation wouldn't it? The results from poor Rosemary's "operation" went horribly wrong, even by Freeman's standards. Who knows why? Was it the lack of antiseptics? The story of Rosemary Kennedy is the story of her lobotomy. It is a relevant that Freeman did not use antiseptics. (If it wasn't, you wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it out.) BTW - just between you and me - you are on the Kennedy PR payroll, right?--Agiantman 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

These personal attacks are totally out of line: claiming that James wishes to keep information out of the article because it is relevant, accusing him of being paid to push a point of view. James, if you want to start an RfC against Agiantman for this, I will gladly endorse. -- 19:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon started one this morning: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman. Apparently we're all getting fed up at the same time. Gamaliel 20:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence that the issue of antisepsis had any relevance to the outcome of Kennedy's operation, I've removed it. I've also removed the general description of Freeman's method of performing lobotomies. In mentioning that an article subject had a particular operation, we don't normally go into details about how such an operation is performed. I've restored the information (with citation) that Agiantman removed, about what Joe Kennedy was told at the time. The two books cited by Agiantman aren't needed to support anything in the revised paragraph, so I've moved them to a general "References" section, although it would be better if the authors were given so they could be properly alphabetized. JamesMLane 10:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it should stay. The lack of antiseptics is critical to discussing her operation. The information is sourced and relevant. The story of Rosemary Kennedy is the story of her botched lobotomy. There is no other parallel article on wikipedia unless you can mention one. It is truly sad to see pro-Kennedy POV warriors attempting to remove sourced encyclopedic information from Rosemary Kennedy's bio just to salvage Joe Kennedy's image. Very sad.--Agiantman 18:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, let's just stipulate that, in every comment you make in every talk page of every article, and in reply to any RfC, RfAr, or whatever, your position is that anyone who disagrees with you as a POV warrior, that everything you write is Revealed Truth and only the basest of motives could prevent another editor from seeing that, and that there's an evil cabal of pro-Kennedy editors taking their orders directly from Hyannisport. That way, you'll save the trouble of typing some of these allegations in one post after another, and the rest of us will be spared the annoyance of reading and rereading and rerereading them.

Turning to the substance: To refer to Freeman as "now-discredited" is plainly POV. What we know, the objective fact, is that mainstream psychiatric/neurological opinion has shifted since his day. To say he's been "discredited" implies that mainstream opinion today is right. That's POV. My version states what we know without dispute: that the opinions of contemporary professionals do not accord with Freeman's about the use of lobotomy in such cases.

The other major difference is in the level of detail about how a particular medical procedure is performed. We don't normally do that. I thought of some well-known medical events that I could quickly check: John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani were treated for prostate cancer, and that's all the articles say (not even stating whether the treatment was chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, or some combination thereof, let alone how a surgery is performed). At least we know that Melissa Etheridge had chemotherapy, but that's all it says; details about chemotherapy are available to the reader who clicks on the link. Bob Dylan's motorcycle accident -- he was injured and had a long period of convalescence. Wikipedia is a bit more forthcoming about Bo Jackson, but still nothing telling the reader where to insert the surgical instruments:

Following surgery and rehabilitation on his injured hip, it was discovered that Jackson had avascular necrosis, which caused deterioration of the cartilage and bone around his left hip. Jackson had an artificial hip implanted . . . .

If Rosemary Kennedy had contracted an infection from the operation, then Freeman's disdain for antisepsis would be relevant to Kennedy's article. As far as we know, however, she didn't. To learn about important facts in her life, the reader doesn't need a primer on medical practice in the 1940s. The whole lurid passage about the ice pick can go into the lobotomy article. JamesMLane 23:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing POV

JamesMLane, you repeatedly refer to Freeman as a "leading" neurologist. He was the acknowledged primary advocate of the lobotomy, but what makes him "leading"? Are you trying to suggest that Joe Kennedy was a good father who sought out a "leading" neurologist and was given bad advice? That's what it sounds like. In fact, Freeman was not held in high esteem by his colleagues and was not allowed to perform his barbarous lobotomies in his own hospital. The "leading" neurologist comment stays out until you provide a legitimate source.--Agiantman 01:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As far as I can tell, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., was a good father who sought out the best advice that he could get from a good doctor. The doctor gave atrocious advice. That is exactly what I am saying. However, we disagree. Robert McClenon 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What give you the impression that Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., was a good father? Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., was a know bootlegger - it was illegal at the time. The closest criminal activity we have today to what he was doing is a drug trafficer, or smuggler. His activity was criminal. Is that a good role model? Is that a good father? As to the lobotomy, it wasn't done in the middle ages, it was done in the 1941. We had advanced medicine, aircraft, and science. How many other famous people were lobotomized? 24.147.97.230 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that there was advanced medicine in 1941. A lobotomy is technically advanced medicine. It is not something crude like blood-letting. Also, Joseph Kennedy was not a criminal in 1941. He had been the equivalent of a drug importer, but by 1941 it was no longer illegal. You and I can disagree as to whether present-day drug smugglers can be what I would consider good fathers. He would have been better off to be a moral role model, but he was trying to provide for his children. Robert McClenon 06:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Though lobotomy may be more difficult than bloodletting, it was no more advanced than waving a dead chicken over the afflicted person. It was mutilation, based on mere guesswork and wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 18 Nov 2005

Lobotomies were "standard" medical procedures back then for people with certain psychiatric problems back then. That is true and documented. The developers of it were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine & Physiology for their development. Just because it was later shown to be an incorrect treatment doesn't show that the people were malevelant or deliberately wrongheaded or witch-doctors. It just meant that they made mistakes. Human beings make mistakes - and the ones who make progress are the ones who learn from them.

I happen to agree with you that he was in his own way a monster who had sold his soul to the Devil in a way that is difficult to explain. This makes his children tragic figures, not villains. However, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You will not make the case that he was a villain simply by pushing your POV. Robert McClenon 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Old Joe Kennedy was a criminal, but I'm not prepared to accept that he was such a monster that he'd do this to his own daughter out of malice. He was duped, by an eminent quack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 18 Nov 2005

Rosemary Kennedy was mildly retarded, not mentally ill. The insertion of material about "mood swings" creates the wrong impression. The remark that "her mood swings continued unabated" is unsourced and therefore removed.--Agiantman 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Informed sources say that Rosemary had a measured IQ of around 60. This is not "mildly retarded", but rather, it is more serious than that. Mildly retarded is an IQ of around 80. I am going to replace the phrase in the text with moderately retarded - not that I really understand most people to understand the difference. Let's just say that mildly retarded people can do lots more than moderately retarded people can.

There is no "passage" here about the lobotomy procedure. There is a single sentence. The lobotomy article has numerous paragraphs. The reader should be able to read one sentence of the about the procedure that disabled Rosemary Kennedy for life. To stifle that is to insert POV. The sentence stays in. --Agiantman 01:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to laugh at this line about lobotomies: "but his belief in this procedure as a treatment for psychologically disabled people is no longer widely accepted." No longer widely accepted? NO LONGER WIDELY ACCEPTED? IN FACT, IT IS UNIVERSALLY REJECTED. There are zero proponents of lobotomy today. And even when it was being performed, LOBOTOMY "SURGERY" WAS ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL AND NEVER WIDELY ACCEPTED. Read about it. I have provided several sources. I am amazed at how far these POV warriors will go to protect Ted Kennedy's father from justifiable criticism.--Agiantman 01:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please be civil. It is true that it was always controversial, but it was considered by many at the time to be a valid treatment. Please do not shout and yell. Robert McClenon 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The developers of lobotomy were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology. This means that it was recognized as a valid treatment. It doesn't mean that it was correct by any means, but it does mean that it was widely accepted as valid. Some people need to learn the difference between that which is "widely accepted" and that which is actually good & true in the big scheme of things. People and organizations make mistakes. DAW

Some specific points:

Details of a surgical procedure: Not surprisingly, you ignore all the examples I give, because they might undercut your cherished thesis that anyone who disagrees with you is a POV warrior. Here's another example for you to ignore: Arthur Ashe. Consequences from his surgeries are what killed him, at the age of 49, so it was certainly important in his life. Here's what our article says: "[A]fter being slowed by heart surgery in 1979, Ashe retired in 1980. ... In 1983, Ashe underwent a second heart surgery. ... The story of Ashe's life turned from success to tragedy in 1988, however, when Ashe discovered he had contracted HIV during the blood transfusions he had received during one of his two heart surgeries." It doesn't even say what kind of heart surgery he had, let alone anything like, "This surgery was performed by cutting open the patient's breastbone with an electric saw, then replacing diseased coronary arteries with veins transplanted from the leg", which would be the equivalent of what you want to add here. The medical details just aren't relevant.

Freeman's status: You provide no defense for trying to insert the opinion that Freeman is "discredited". All you argue is that your opinion is correct. Assuming the truth of your unsourced assertion that absolutely no one agrees with him, there was a time when no one agreed with the theory of continental drift, but it's not our position to pronounce that such a theory has been "discredited". We don't make such judgments; we report the facts. I thought that calling Freeman "leading" was a concise way of conveying the information in the Mercola piece, but, since you cavil at it, I'll replace it with the specific information.

I concur with Robert McClenon about civility, although I do not share his apparent optimism that there's anything to be gained by telling you about such things. JamesMLane 18:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't ECT merely a variation of mechanical invasive lobotomy? I mean: Due to the excessive activity of the brain during the convulsion the glucosis level drops due to artificially high oxygen level, which likely causes necrosis. Furthermore the slight N2O level is a joke (a doctor of medicine told me multiple times, that "one can omit the anaesthesia"; I still have no answer, why they do it; seems to be illegal without it; or he meant it literally (one can omit nearly everything, if one wants to)). So lobotomy seems to be still widely accepted but in a different, less obvious form. Obviously ECT patients don't show the same symptoms (at the same day after the "treatment" they can still use phones, talk, walk, pretend to study computer science (... at least until their employer tells them, that they caused multiple times a million dollor damage by very subtle activity), ...), but I am pretty sure, that I would feel much better without those headaches and cramps and anger attacks... In former advertisements for lobotomy (where the patient metamorphs from a wild angry man into a trumpet player (he played in the Cmdr. Riker style)) I see an analogy to the modern advertisement of ECT (there is even a "Association for Convulsive Therapy"[1], which surely tries to advertise this insane maltreatment (but maybe I misinterpreted the name since there is insulin convulsive/coma therapy, too - doctors of medicine are so ... originative)). Of course there are some differences: e.g. the electrons and their induced electromagnetic fields are entering the brain at the side of the head not at the top or through the eyes (like the "butter knife"). --213.54.90.152 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does this ranting garbage come from? ECT has absolutely nothing to do with lobotomies. Also, whoever wrote this has absolutely no knowledge of the thousands of severely-depressed & suicidal patients who have benefitted greatly from ECT.

[edit] Comparing Rosemary Kennedy to Arthur Ashe

Very silly comments. I have been absolutely civil under the circumstances despite your tag team harrassment. The case of Rosemary Kennedy does not compare at all with Arthur Ashe. First, Ashe is famous, not for a disability, but rather for being a world tennis champion. Rosemary Kennedy is famous for her lobotomy. Second, Ashe's disabling condition was AIDS, not an operation (which arguably saved his life). And despite Ashe's explanation, neither you nor I know for sure how Arthur Ashe obtained his AIDS status. Finally, if we were to pick up any book about lobotomies or pyschosurgery, we would find a discussion of Rosemary Kennedy's case. If we were to pick up a book about heart surgery, it would be unlikely for us to find a passage on Ashe. That is why a one sentence description of the lobotomy operation is appropriate here and no mention of cutting heart patient's breastbones is necessary in the Ashe article.--Agiantman 21:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the name of the doctor in Ashe's article, but James McClenon and Robert Lane want to insert the doctor's name who performed the operation here, with a glowing description such as "leading neurologist" and "director of laboratories." If the name of the doctor is so important, then so is a one-sentence description of his gruesome operation. As for the claim that I have provided "no defense for trying to insert the opinion that Freeman is 'discredited,'" why not review any of the sources I provided. (e.g., Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness (Basic Books, 1986); The Lobotomist: A Maverick Medical Genius and His Tragic Quest to Rid the World of Mental Illness (Wiley, 2004); Learner, L. The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family (Ballantine, 1996). The Washington Post even uses the term "discredited" in reference to psychosurgery.[2]--Agiantman 22:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you or reverting your edits is not harrassment, and juvenile comments like "James McClenon and Robert Lane" are hardly the work of someone being "absolutely civil". Gamaliel 23:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale revision of paragraphs, creating an RfC page, and piling on with Rfc criticism, and wikistalking is certainly evidence of harrassment. I have evidence to support all. I do apologize for confusing Mr. Lane with Mr. McClenon. It's easy to do in that they edit the same pages with the same style of writing. Sorry for the mistake.--Agiantman 03:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

For about half a minute, I did not realize that he was deliberately trying to conflate two editors. I thought that he was actually referring to James McClenon, a well-known scholar of the paranormal, whom I have not seen personally in many years, and was wondering what he might think and whether there could be a reunion. I was wondering whether maybe James (Jim) McClenon was now contributing to Wikipedia. I then realized that he has instead intended to insult two Wikipedians. He instead insulted three people. Robert McClenon 01:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

When I read it, I assumed that it wasn't an intended insult, but just an inadvertent slip. It goes to show you what wusses we liberals are. JamesMLane 01:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

As to the substance: Rosemary Kennedy isn't famous for her disability. Lots of people in her situation will never have Wikipedia articles. She's notable as a member of a well-known family; we have articles on her parents, all her brothers and sisters, and various in-laws and cousins. She, like Ashe, experienced an operation that had significant consequences for her life. (You think the surgery saved Ashe's life? Fine, that was still a significant consequence, yet no one editing the Ashe article thought it necessary to include a description of the surgery.) Freeman's name was originally inserted by an anon. I don't feel strongly about the name by itself, but it is relevant to Kennedy's life story to note that this surgery wasn't the work of some crackpot, but that it represented at least one school of psychiatric/neurological thought of that time. The 20-20 hindsight that experts in 2005 would have acted differently is less relevant, and the exact details of how lobotomies were done in 1941 is completely irrelevant. I haven't looked at the sources you cite. I'll assume they support a factual statement that Freeman's views have little or no expert support today. I'll assume they argue in favor of the opinion that Freeman's views deserve no support. I won't assume that they analyze whether describing Freeman as "discredited" comports with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You can't argue for inclusion of an opinion by arguing for its correctness. JamesMLane 02:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemary was not mentally ill; she was mildly retarded

I am putting a hypothetical theory forth that Rosemary may have been afflicted with Autism. I'm not sure that the medical establishment had any idea what autism was back then but her symptoms seem to indicate classical symptoms of this disease. The lobotomy is a tragedy and in my opinion, and this is opinion, the Kennedy curse was put upon them because of this decision. Autism is something that Rosemary could have lived with and even contributed something to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is one of the most shocking aspects of her operation. She was mildly retarded (i.e, developmentally disabled) not mentally ill (i.e., "psychologically disabled"). Freeman only researched and operated on individuals with mental illness, not mental retardation. Attempts to revise history and suggest that Rosemary was mentally ill should be reverted unless sourced. Similarly, references to "psychologically disabled" should be removed.--Agiantman 22:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, by the information we have today on Rosemary and today's definitions of mental illness and mental retardation (and to a great extent even in 1941, at the time of her lobotomy) lobotomies were not done as a "cure" for mental retardation, they were done to treat mental illness, at least to make people with mental illnesses requiring institutionalization more manageble. While Rosemary was at most possibly mildly retarded and perhaps mildly mentally ill (maybe qualifying by todays standards as having something like ODD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder), the indications in her case were surely to make her more manageble and maybe even instutionalizable. I'm speculating here, but I wonder if Joe and his collegues were really expecting the lobotomy to help "bring her home" as promoters of lobotomies claimed the procedure helps families do (Freeman I think was quoted as saying lobotomies help "bring them home"). If her family was concerned about her possibly acting sexually irresponsible and bringing disgrace on the family, perhaps one might even say the lobotomy was done for eugenic reasons, to help keep her from becoming pregnant and burdening the family with her offspring -- and perhaps her husband, who might want to marry her for her wealth and connections. I have to wonder how many other prominent families might have had delinquent daughters similarly "treated" back then, in the 1930s and 1940s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.148.86.116 (talk • contribs) 18 November 2006.

Frances Farmer leaps to mind, though in her case the family were not the main instigators. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Discredited" is POV, pure and simple

Let's see if we can make progress on this one specific point, at least. Instead of incessantly reverting, would one of you please discuss the substance of this point? Specifically:

If we report the facts about contemporary expert attitudes toward Freeman's views, is there any information that's being kept from the reader, other than the unencyclopedic point that a handful of nonexpert Wikipedians happen to hold the same opinion?
How can it possibly be NPOV for us to assert that one side of such a dispute is correct, which is the clear implication of the term "discredited"?

This subject hasn't really been addressed yet. In the hope of avoiding yet another incredibly time-wasting edit war occasioned by the get-Kennedy faction, I'm going to hold off re-reverting this point temporarily. On one of the other points in dispute, however, the business about the leucotome, the user favoring inclusion (Agiantman) has addressed it, and has failed to show its relevance to the biography of Rosemary Kennedy, so I'm removing that. I'll also hold off on the other points to see whether we can make any good-faith progress on "discredited", which should be a no-brainer among editors who understand Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane 04:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the user favoring inclusion (Agiantman) has addressed it, and has shown its relevance to the biography of Rosemary Kennedy, and I am including it. It is only a single sentence. There is no reason someone interested in NPOV would want to keep out this sentence.--Agiantman 04:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The details of how an operation was performed are simply not relevant. Put it in the article about lobotomy as part of the history of the procedure. Put it in the article about Walter Freeman as part of the description of his career. It has no relevance to Kennedy, and I suspect that the only reason to include it is your POV. The methods were crude, and even shocking, by today's standards, so you want to convey the anti-Kennedy message that Joe Kennedy was obviously an evil person because he subjected his poor daughter to this. Why don't we include the statement that he never had any of his children vaccinated against polio? JamesMLane 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Polio vaccinations weren't available for any of that generation of Kennedy children at all. The Salk polio vaccine (the first one) was introduced in 1954-55, and the Kennedy children were born much earlier than that. For example, Joseph P., Jr., and John were adults during WW II and served in the US Navy then. I personally cannot remember it, because I was born in Nov. 1954, but I KNOW that I was among the first mass vaccinations for polio because my parents have told me so. I also personally remember getting the Sabin (oral) vaccination in the 1960s - even though I didn't really need it. DAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.82.139 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

All sourced accounts, which JamesMLane acknowledges he has not read, indicate that Freeman is a disgraced figure in the history of psychiatry and that lobotomy is unversally discredited as a treatment for mental illness. (It was never accepted as a treatment for mild retardation by anyone, ever.) Since ample sources have been provided, the burden is on JamesMLane to show that an encyclopedic source documents that Freeman and his lobotomy treatments are still held in high esteem by the mental health community. I will be waiting.--Agiantman 04:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, finally we have a resolution of this. I will edit the article according to your own statement of what the sources establish. I will assume good faith to the extent of assuming that the sources say what you say they say. JamesMLane 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I would agree that Freeman is now a discredited or disgraced figure. That does not change the fact that at the time he was lauded, more or less a celebrity in his field. I see no reason to doubt that Joe Kennedy handed his daughter over to be treated of a doctor he thought was the best… nor that made what turned out to be, in retrospect, a terrible decision.

I would concur with the comment above that Rosemary Kennedy is known (famous would be far too strong a word) mainly for being a Kennedy. If her life history were basically the same and she had not been from a famous family, we would never have heard of her. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:13, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable POV

Freeman was always a controversial, polarizing figure. He was the leading proponent of lobotomy and I guess you could call him a celebrity in the field, but contemporaries never referred to him as a leading neurologist. All sources indicate that Joe Kennedy was primarily concerned that his daughter would do something to damage the family's reputation, such as becoming pregnant (e.g., [3]). When they were "successful," lobotomies were known to make individuals with mental illness (not mental retardation) more "manageable." That is not a legitimate reason to subject one's daughter to psychosurgery. If this article attempts to paint Joe Kennedy as a responsible, sincere dad who was duped by the best doctors in the the world when he forced his 23 yo mildly retarded daughter to undergo a gruesome lobotomy, that is unacceptable POV.--Agiantman 02:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add that, if this article attempts to paint Joe Kennedy as a Machiavellian schemer who callously ruined his daughter's life for his own convenience, that is also unacceptable. We are not here to attempt to paint Joe Kennedy (or, for that matter, Walter Freeman) in any particular way, but simply to set out the facts. JamesMLane 07:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The facts speak for themselves. Let the reader drew his/her own conclusions. --Agiantman 12:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatboy.cc link

The fatboy.cc link is to what is primarily an attack site against her brother, Ted Kennedy. There already was a consensus that it was not encyclopedic on the article page about her brother. That consensus should certainly also apply to this page. Her brother has been an actor in history and politics, and future historians will continue to debate the extent to which his actions were for good, for ill, and both, and his personal misdeeds do form part of his history. Rosemary was a victim, nothing more. Portraying her family in an unflattering light is both irrelevant to her and disrespectful to her as a human being who was only victim.

Any case against their father, such as that he was a grand Machiavellian schemer, should be made by reference on their father's biographical page to any reputable critical biography of him. Robert McClenon 15:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the word consensus to mean you and your fellow pro-Kennedy POV warriors. If I didn't agree to it, it can't be consensus, i.e. a general agreement. Consensus does not mean majority vote. The link to Howie Carr's Kennedy page is encyclopedic and quite worthy of inclusion of this encyclopedia. His information on Rosemary Kennedy is excellent as are the photos. Howie Carr is the most well known news columnist in Massachusetts. It's true that Carr is critical of Ted Kennedy, but that's because Ted Kennedy has done much to criticize.--Agiantman 15:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a simple majority, but it does not necessarily mean unanimity either. It means a strong prevalence of agreement. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

That is how I was using it. It appears that Agiantman is asserting the right to a liberum veto. I disagree. Robert McClenon 00:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, consensus, i.e. general agreement, does require unanimity. Unanimity is a synonym for consensus according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: con·sen·sus

Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Latin, from consentire

1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.

The wiki definition is consistent with this as well (see it here: consensus. I am glad I was able to teach people something new here.--Agiantman 03:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a Merriam-Webster on hand, so I cannot verify if it gives other definitions that are closer to how both Robert and I understand the term, but as a member of several organizations that operate by consensus methods, having worked 4-1/2 years for a company that used consensus methods heavily in making technical decisions, and having given talks on the topic in, corporate, activist, and academic settings, I am quite comfortable in asserting that, while unanimity is certainly consensus, and while some consensus groups (e.g. Quaker meetings) allow a single individual to block consensus, consensus need not be unanimity. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I see the Merriam-Webster cited elsewhere on the web defining one meaning of consensus as "the judgment arrived at by most or all of those concerned". Was that missing from the unspecified page that you accessed, or did you just find it inconvenient? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The site Consensus Economics is a perfect example of using the word in the sense that Robert and I both used it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The definition of consensus to include less than unanimity wasn't missing from the page Agiantman accessed. As he himself quoted the entry, definition 1b is "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". Similarly, the guideline on Wikipedia:Consensus contains this passage:

In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority.

From both these sources, it is clear that unanimity is not required. JamesMLane 05:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How silly. Wikipedia's evolving VFD policy does not change the definition of the word "consensus." A majority or super-majority vote is not the same as a consensus, no matter who says it is. And the "consensus economics" company you refer to misuses the term for marketing purposes. "Mean" or "average" economic forcasts would not bring the same credibility as "consensus." Yes, a true consensus requires unanimity. That's why a consensus can be very difficult to reach. Sorry if you are disappointed. --Agiantman 06:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I pointed out that the dictionary definition, as you yourself quoted it, includes the meaning we're giving the word, and you don't respond. I pointed out that, regardless of what the dictionary says, your position is contradictory to the Wikipedia guidelines about how the concept of "consensus" is used in this project, and you just refer back to the dictionary definition, but not to the one that actually appears in the dictionary. Instead, based on what appears to be a whopping six weeks of editing here, you tell the rest of us that we've been doing it wrong, and you make this pronouncement in terms that I personally find condescending and annoying. Putting aside your tone, the bottom line is that no one editor can hold this article hostage, condemning us to perpetual protection or perpetual edit warring unless that one editor is completely satisfied with the content. We haven't gotten to 695,357 articles (in the English version) by spending inordinate amounts of time trying to make every sentence of every article completely acceptable to every editor. JamesMLane 06:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Rosemary Kennedy page by Howie Carr is the best page on the web dedicated to Rosemary Kennedy. It is written non POV and has photos of Rosemary in high res found no where else on the internet. Though other pages at this site are political satire, this page is non POV with no jokes or jabs. Anyone who would like to see what she looked like or read an accurate description of the lobotomy can do so there. What is the problem with this link?

I for one find the fatboy link to Rosemary with disclaimer acceptable. For someone seeking information on the subject, it is informative and interesting. So what if external links hav a POV, that is expected. GangofOne 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the fatboy.cc link. If the image is public domain, then it can be copied directly here. The caption, "Does this woman look retarded to you?" is a confrontational rhetorical question. The disclaimer is simply a flimsy device to provide a link to a non-encyclopedic source that contains no new information about Rosemary Kennedy. If it was not appropriate for her brother, it is certainly not appropriate for her article. I respectfully disagree with GangofOne, and I will civilly disagree with the anonymous editors. Robert McClenon 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a link that includes the photos and article by Howie Carr or leave the one to the Rosemary Kenendy page at fatboy.cc intact. Thanks 24.147.97.230 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus restatement

It appears that there are two different issues about "consensus" that should be separated. The first is dictionary definition issues. The second is questions of Wikipedia policy.

I think that both Agiantman and JamesMLane have shown that there are at least two definitions of "consensus", one of which does mean unanimity, and one of which means essentially supermajority. We will not "resolve" which of the definitions is correct. According to the dictionaries, they both are, and context is important.

The real question is which definition should be used in terms of how Wikipedia is edited and how disputes are resolved. User:JamesMLane is correct in stating that Wikipedia policy defines "consensus" as a supermajority, and that requiring unanimity would allow any one editor to hold any article hostage. The definition of unanimity would grant every editor a liberum veto, and thus would mean that any article on any controversial subject would never evolve.

To get back to the fatboy.cc link, Kelly Martin concluded her mediation of Ted Kennedy by stating that there was a supermajority opinion of signed-in users that the link was non-encyclopedic and inappropriate. If the link was inappropriate there, of a site that criticized Rosemary's brother, then it is clearly also the sense of a supermajority that the link is inappropriate to this article about Ted's sister. Robert McClenon 12:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who User:Kelly Martin is or why anyone would suggest she has the final say as to what is encyclopedic and appropriate. I do know that you gave her a nice big medal on her user page. LOL! Trying to keep website links off this article that are critical of the Kennedy family is just more POV pushing on your part. Knock it off. Howie Carr's web page is the most comprensive page out there critical of Ted Kennedy, and I will be reintroducing it on the Ted Kennedy article as well. BTW - It is abundantly clear that you have not changed your behavior since your RFC.--Agiantman 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that this page is where to discuss Robert McClenon's "behavior". If you believe something in his remark here is inappropriate (I can't for the life of me imagine what), add it to the RfC. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Diaries written by Rosemary in the late 1930s and published in the 1980s,"

Were these actually published? What is the name of the book? Surely mentioning the name of her published works should be in a biography. GangofOne 05:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, her diaries were published. The name of the book is Rose Kennedy and Her Family: The Best and Worst of Their Lives and Times by Barbara Gibson (ISBN: 1559722991). Gibson worked as Rose Kennedy's personal secretary from 1968 to 1978. Gibson disobeyed orders from Rose Kennedy to throw Rosemary's diaries in the trash.[4] The reason should be obvious.--Agiantman 06:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I have added the reference. GangofOne 06:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can anyone find an image of her for her bio?--MONGO 08:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mixed feelings about fatboy

I have had for some time mixed feelings about the fatboy site. Obviously a lot of hard work has gathered information, that where verifable, seems correct. Of course, that information is mixed in with speculative innuendo and attacks which no one can verify or refute, such as the innuendo about the father's intent when ordering the operation. Obviously, no one could have intended the result of that operation, and that speculation is offensive. It wouldn't be the first medical procedure gone bad or the first people to have hopes for a medical procedure that was subsequently invalidated.--Silverback 00:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed this compromise. But I am not going to engage in an edit war to defend it. My feelings about this site are too mixed. There is a lot of good information and pictures there that even Kennedy lovers might put up with the shit, to access, but the innuendo is thick and offensive.

Rosemary Kennedy Bio & Photos Posted at fatboy.cc, BEWARE this site is a mixture of information not easily accessible online elsewhere and viscious speculative innuendo and attacks.

I have kept the irrelevant innuendo and details of the procedure out of the article proper. But my standards for external links at the end of the article have always been lower. Obviously, this is near the limit. --Silverback 00:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

How about merging (without violating copyright ofcourse, but facts can't be copyrighted) the useful bits with the article? Then there'll be no need for the link. I assume nobody's claiming the pic is the useful bit? --fvw * 00:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that facts are not copylefted by YHVH under Creative Commons license? Robert McClenon 01:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's an underlying principle of U.S. copyright law, which copyleft arrangements can't change. You can copyright words and images. You cannot copyright facts or ideas. Here's a site with some copyright basics that mentions this point: [5]. No one can invoke copyright law to restrict dissemination of facts. BTW, what's "YHVH"? JamesMLane 05:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The details of operation and whether there was lack of anti-sepsis, just are not needed here, and the editor proposing those, at least at that time was not trying to get them into the Freeman page, where they would be relevant, and be reviewed by others in the community interested in getting those details right. There was no evidence that the particulars were relevant to what happened in this particular case. The main value of the fatboy site is the assembly of pictures. Some of the innuendo even seems plausible because it captures some of the embarassment associated with a mentally marginally competent individual who has become unmanagable and possibly vulnerable to sexual exploitation. The social embarassment at that time would have been greater, but it is difficult to protect such an adult individual even today. However, I think there is no place for this speculation and innuendo within the article. I have mixed feelings about the link.--Silverback 00:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I once again would like to express my appreciation for the integrity of Silverback, whose political views differ by almost 180 degrees from Ted Kennedy, but is willing to recognize what is and is not encyclopedic. The anonymous editors and Agiantman should learn something from Silverback about integrity.

I will comment on Silverback's comment that this young woman appears to have been mentally marginally competent and prone to sexual exploitation. I agree. That is contradicted by the caption of the picture, which says: "Does this woman look retarded to you?" I do not have mixed feelings about the link, because I think that the contradictory mixture of reasons for the link and what it says are absurd. Robert McClenon 01:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. I agree that the argument represented by the caption is invalid, I guess the reason I am willing to be more tolerant of the link, is that I believe adults can see through that. Perhaps, however, some people have not encountered such a individual or the dilemmas they pose for the parents, once the hormones and emotions become volatile and they become of adult age. Believe me, men can sense the vulnerability and possible "opportunity" right away. However, things might not go as smoothly as they hope! A reaction of fear, panic or anger and lack of comprehension can easily turn the "opportunity" into a nightmare. Whether these individuals can consent to a relationship or sexual experience or whether these should be, perhaps cruelly, forever denied to them is a difficult dilemma, but how many people know this? The parents at least are more likely to care what happens.--Silverback 02:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The comment "Does this woman look retarded to you?" implies that she may not have been special needs to a high degree. The fact that she was able to be presented to the K&Q of England at a time when most special needs folks were in institutions shows that her case was marginal. The page at fatboy.cc shows Rosemary as a wonderful young girl. I would think that if she was alive and not lobotomized she would be pleased with this Howie Carr's defense of her. It's not like the page attacks her, it documents here life and has the best photo of her on the net, she looks terrific and happy too. Why the putting of her in a closet??24.147.97.230 01:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting her in a closet? Are you serious? We had an encyclopedia article about her long before you showed up to promote your attack website. Gamaliel 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

...and wrote that Joe Sr. was "Shattered". Where did that come from? Is someone just inventing history here??24.147.97.230 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That sentence appears to have been added by 81.192.253.231. I can't speak for whoever that was, but the sentence appears reasonable enough and referred to his biographers as a source. (Kind of vague, yes, but better than nothing I suppose.) Why wouldn't he have been shattered? Do you expect him to rub his hands together and cackle like Monty Burns?

None of this has anything to do with the matter at hand, which is your absurd suggestion that we're trying to cover something up by not adding a promo link to your attack website. It adds nothing to the content of this article. Gamaliel 02:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If, as I believe, we shouldn't include the "fatboy" link, then it doesn't improve matters to include the link but append an explanation of why we shouldn't have included it. The inclusion is still improper. I'll hold off on reverting pending further discussiion. JamesMLane 06:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've protected the page following a request on WP:RFPP from User:164.58.253.45 who wanted me to protect the version with this external link in it [6], but I protected on the current version, so I don't know whether the link is there or not. If other editors disagree with the protection, please say so here, as I'm not keen on locking a page based only on an anon IP request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The anon had already requested page protection twice before, I'd turned it down and I think jpgordon agreed with me, though I may be reading too much into his comment. Personally I'm not sure page protection is necessary here. --fvw * 00:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Note that this anon has been blocked for a 3RR violation and is probably a sockpuppet. Gamaliel 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That anon had committed a 3RR violation by inserting the questionable link four times, and then had the audacity to requst page protection. In other words, the anon was requesting that you lock the improperly reverted page. Robert McClenon 01:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming from the comments that I should unprotect, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the feedback. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Was Rosemary retarded or mentally ill?

Based on Kessler's book, Rosemary was primarily mentally ill. It seems extremely probably that Howie Carr [7] read this book. ("butterknife"), so his simple question "Does this young woman look retarded to you?" no longer seems from out of nowhere. Do her diary entries sound retarded to you? She was 23, legal adult, and smart enough to escape, and want to escape, the convent she was living in, so she could walk around at night. Does that sound retarded?

I haven't integrated the new text into the old text completely, it's kind of chopped up, but maybe there are some other comments, before I bother? GangofOne 11:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the work on this. I agree that she was most likely not severly "retarded". As to Howie Carr's use of the term, here is a word for word quote from page 11 of the Boston Herald Traveler, July 20, 1969. (now the Boston Herald) "Ethel Kennedy Launches Conn. Retarded Events Storrs, Conn- Mrs. Ethel Kennedy opened the first Connecticut special Olympics for the retarded yesterday at the University of Connecticut here under drizzling skies. She presented winning contestants with ribbons and certificates. Mrs. Ethel Kennedy was ....The event was attended by more than 500 retarded participants from..."

It's clear from this article that the descriptive, "retarded" was accepted and commonly used in reporting in the past. I have sent Howie Carr an email asking for them to post this on his website. (hope the respond) In any case, to belittle the Rosemary page at fatboy.cc due to the line "Does the woman look retarded" is wrong. In fact, the term is of historical accuracy and is not derogatory. It's also interesting that instead of attending the special olympics himself on July 19 1969 that the Senator chose to go drinking on Martha's Vinyard at the Regatta instead. Perhaps he would have been better to have supported his sisters in CT. As to the escapes, I think she got out twice after the lobotomy. As to the convent, the story at the time was that she had become a nun...this as a cover for the lobotomy which was kept secret at the time. Please revert the link back. Thanks 24.147.97.230 12:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What test would have established that she was mentally ill? Such a diagnosis was and is even more subjective than "retarded." Nicmart

[edit] Doctor's Qualifications

I noticed this particular article contains the following statement: "Watts performed his neurosurgery training at Massachusetts General Hospital and later became chief of neurosurgery at George Washington University Hospital. Highly regarded, Dr. Watts became the 91st president of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia." I fail to see how this is helpful or necessary in this particular article - a brief summary of one of the attending physicians is pointless. Personally, I also find the statement somewhat incongrous - there is no similar description of Mr. Freeman's qualifications (or his subsequent history). I find the only possible rationale behind such a statement is to predjudice the reader towards a particular interpretation of the surgery - which is a controversial issue, as the article further examines. This is supported by the fact that there is no similar summary of Mr. Freeman's relatively less glowing subsequent history in the description of the surgery.

In any case, the information on Dr. Watts would be more suitable in a short article on him - however, I am too inexperienced to provide such an article. I suggest making a stub article about Dr. Watts, in the interests of brevity and clairity - all considerations of possible bias aside - and changing the summary to:

"Joseph Kennedy had the procedure done by neurologist Walter Freeman, director of the laboratories at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C., together with his partner, Dr. James W. Watts, MD, from the University of Virginia - a highly regarded, and later prominent, neurosurgeon."

I hope this satisfies both sides, and doesn't encourage any edit wars.

-Haemo

I think part of the reason the details are there is that earlier versions of the article seemed to imply that Rosemary's father was negliegent in getting unqualified physicians for the procedure; I believe these facts are to counter that impression. I don't think Watt's should get an article, too little to say about him, although Freeman does have one. I will think about this some more. GangofOne 06:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

-GangOfOne

My proposed summary would still give indication of his credentials, without the un-necessary amount of information unrelated to the topic at hand; that is, it would ensure that the false impression of him being an anonymous crank is avoided, while providing a more concise, fluid and appropriate summary of his credentials. It is understandable that Freeman would have an article about him; he is a prominent historical figure in some respects. It is my belief that the amount of information given is unsuitable to the encyclopaedia format - it is, as you have said, all we know about him, and constitutes a pointless (and possibly prejudicial) aside. The fact that we was later a the 91st President of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, or the history of his medical training is not really part of an article about Rosemary Kennedy and should be removed. Haemo

I don't understand what you mean by these facts being prejudicial. Prejudicial of what? Also, I think the specificity of "chief of neurosurgery at George Washington University Hospital. Highly regarded, Dr. Watts became the 91st president of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia." is a lot more convincing than unspecific generalities like "highly regarded, and later prominent, neurosurgeon." GangofOne 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is, and remains to be, a considerable debate over the reasoning behind the actions of the Kennedy family with regards to Rosemary Kennedy's lobotomy. I do not feel strongly either way, but it seems to me that one of the major bones of contention has been the appropriateness of the operation provided, as one can readily tell from reading the literature on the subject. Even at the time of the operation there was, to quote from [[lobotomy], "a strong division amongst the medical profession as to the viability of the treatment and concern over the irreversible nature of the operation". There are reasonable questions that can be asked about whether or not the doctors gave Mr. Kennedy good counsel with regards to Rosemary's condition - that is an aspect of this whole situation which should not be overlooked. If you look at the two attending physician's summaries in this article, you will see:

1) No mention of Dr. Freeman's lack of surgical training, or his subsequently sordid relationship with the medical community.

2) Contrast this to Dr. Watts, wherein there is extensive mention of his medical training, and mention of his prominent stature later in the medical community.

I cannot help, and I hope that this is not an unreasonable inference, that the article does not accurately give a complete portrait of the attending doctors, and that incompleteness is entirely skewed towards the negative. It seems reasonable that if Dr. Watts' future accomplishments are to be brought into a discussion of the article, it is only fair that his partners activities should also be brought into the discussion. I, however, do not advocate doing so - I would say that simply trimming the section on Watts, as I have outlined, would suffice to eliminate this inconsistency in the treatment of the two doctors. -Haemo

I think it is better to add facts rather than take away. Watts doesn't have an article, but Freeman does , where you (and the readers of this article) can find out he attended Yale and U of Pa Med School and rest of his history. If you have more facts, add them. (I have not read the books on Freeman and lobotomy.) Also their roles are different. Perhaps Freeman is the one who convinced Joe Kennedy, Freeman seems to be a prosyletizing advocate of his procedure and maybe oversold it. If you have any info how it came to be that Joe Kennedy was convinced, then add it. In the current case, Freeman's lack of surgical training is less relevant, he didn't do the surgery, Watts did, so Watts really is the more important figure. I think the article should , and does, try to point out the exploratory/experimental nature of the surgury. Maybe it could emphasize more that lobotomy was not well-tested and thus perhaps irresponsible to do to her, as it would be regarded today. One thing that could well be added was the lack of patient informed consent, which today is the norm. At the time Rosemay was 23, an adult, and based on what I read in her diary, I would say she is far from a vegetable; why did Joe Kennedy have the right over her to have her operated on? (Of course, the standards of consent were different then, but this case shows WHY the standards had to be changed.) If you are saying the surgery was a mistake , I agree with you; if you are saying lobotomy in general by Freeman/Watts was a mistake, I agree with you; if you say Joe Kennedy had his own interests in the forefront over Rosemary's, I agree with you. If you can add some documented information that brings this out in the article , then please add it. (Most of what I know about the topic comes from the one chapter of the Kessler book; I recommend it. But maybe there are more sources?) GangofOne 04:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Walter Freeman's status at the time of Rosemary Kennedy's operation, the Wikipedia article on the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology states that he was one of the founders (in 1934) and he was their president from 1946 to 1948. So, despite his controversial activities and his showmanship, he was also a senior member of the medical establishment. Freeman was not the only doctor without full surgical training to adopt one surgical procedure as his own: surgeons generally do not approve, and indivdual hospitals' rules may not allow it, but in 1941 it would not have been illegal. NRPanikker (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, James W. Watts has his own Wikipedia page too. NRPanikker (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lobotomy video

What is the relevance of the external link captioned as "YouTube Lobotomy Video"? I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it to find out. If it says something about Rosemary Kennedy, we should indicate what. If it is a general video on lobotomy, it doesn't belong here and probably amounts to linkspam. We don't link a general video on Alzheimer's from the Ronald Reagan article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments by Majnun99

I've moved these from the article to here. Gamaliel 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mental Illness and Mental Retardation are not mutually exclusive--one is a matter of intelligence and the other is matter of regulation of mood and perception of reality. An individual can be mentally retarded and mentally ill at the same time. I am not an expert, but I work for a mental heatlh agency, we have many clients who are both mentally ill and mentally retarded. One of our psychiatrists, who specializes in treated mental illness in mentally retardated individuals, indicates that it's a common misconception that mentally retarded people can't have a mental illness. He also stated in a seminar that people who have mental retardation have a higher risk of developing mental illness than people who are not mentally retarded because mentally retarded people often develop a high level of frustration because of their inability to communicate effectively with others, and because the brain tissue is often unhealthy due to lack of oxygen at birth, congenital anomalies of brain structure, or other problems. On a related note, individuals who have Down's Syndrome have a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease than people who do not have Down's Syndrome. My point is just that if Rosemary Kennedy was mentally ill, it does not automatically mean she could not have been mentally retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majnun99 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rosemary's day lost in Chicago

no reference for this story. Sounds made up. --GangofOne 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050115/ai_n9697034/pg_1 - very interesting read. PMA 15:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] States Freeman was neurosurgeon - conflicts with main Freeman article

The Freeman article says he was NOT a surgeon. Can a knowledgeable person correct this article, if it is in error? 68.46.96.38 06:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the responsible authorities will not say anything about this person, we just have the traditional knowledge in the Internet: There, Freeman is described as a very low-qualified person, who had weird theories about gravitation, microbiology and neurology, and who lost its license to practice due to a blunt false estimation about gravitational force, which killed a patient much earlier than usual (he was alone with that patient (nobody dared to watch or they were already lying on the floor vomiting...) and wanted to have a photo and when he stepped back the "ice-pick" sunk into the back-brain, which did not tolerate the damage). -- So Freeman had the license to do surgery inside the brain, although nobody seems to understand today, where he got it, and how such malfeasance could happen. Freeman needed assistance by a "real" surgeon (who could bore holes into the skull, and who could sew), until he found a way to do it alone. --Homer Landskirty 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Freeman was a fully-educated and trained neurologist M.D. Almost all neurologists engage in purely medical treatments of brain & nerve diseases. [People need to learn the difference between a neurologist and a neurosurgeon - who obviously is a highly-trained & specialized surgeon.] However, all M.D.s in their training study anatomy & surgery, and there is no law against any licensed M.D. from performing surgery. Freeman did this, even though he was really a neurologist. Patients should not see neurologists for neurosurgery - they really, really need to go to fully-qualified neurosurgeons if they think that they might need neurosurgery. Go to a neurologist for diseases like multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and the hundreds of other known neurological diseases, and take their medicince and other treatments, but not surgery from them.

A similar problem in the press is the confusion between a cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Cardiology is a branch of internal medicine that emphasises medical treatment of heart diseases. A real cardiac surgeon has years of training in actual surgery on people's hearts. Go to one of these if you need a heart operation. DAW

[edit] Response to article

Basically, after reading this article on Rosemary Kennedy, I am throughly sickened (as if I wasn't before) by the medical community, and particularly the psychiatric field and the medical doctors in the barbaric field. Today ECT and psycho drugs (including antidepressants, etc.) cause terrible life long permanent side effects for the patients that undergo treatment. It's throughly f*cking disgusting what medical doctors get away with, all for their brand new mercedes-benz! What extortionist clowns (the medical doctors are) of the insurance companies! --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.25.100 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-05T14:02:13

It is not only their car, that is german... Their sexual preferences r 2... Or if its not the car then it is the preference... In german wikipedia they claim, that doctors of medicine r a branch of mid-age jurists (the branch that cant write/talk... just those other things...)... I wonder how the society wants to guarantee a balance... Oh: And another thought: The christians predict a cataclysm... --Homer Landskirty 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is There Any Factual Information Of Mental Illness Instead Of Mood Swings?

Is there an factual information of mentual illeness instead of just mood swings prior to her operation? The IQ tests and diary seems to show someone what was thinking and anything but retarded. Depression and mood swings isnt retardation. And at her age, 23, you would think this would have been caught during her childhood.

Was there any evidence of abuse within the family which could have dirven the depression or mood swings? If CPS was investigating a similar case today, they would assume an adbusive home since this ADULT WOMAN suddenly started acting up. Maybe she was trying to come to terms with something long hidden. -Spencer,Leon 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of the article attempts to portray Joe Kennedy as acting in good faith on the basis of medical advice that he received. Given what we know about Joe Kennedy, that assumption may be unwarranted. It is generally known that he had nine children, an affair with Gloria Swanson, and engaged in (or at least profited from) bootlegging activities during Prohibition. During the Stock Market Crash, he engaged in activities that would violate securities laws today. Indeed, when President Roosevelt appointed Joe Kennedy as the first Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, he did so because "we need a crook like you to know what to prohibit," or words to tht effect. In other words, Joe Kennedy was an arrogant self-centered jerk who got his own way regardless of the harm that it may have caused other people. Rosemary was someone he could not control, and he was determined to do something about it, and he had a lobotomy performed on her. To think that every doctor would stand up to him and say no is incredibly naive. As current information indicates, Rosemary's "problem" may have been nothing more than being a high-spirited vivacious person who wanted to live her own life in her own way. The lobotomy was used on others, but generally only on mentally-disordered convicts and the like. Even there, it was soon discredited.

In my view, John Kennedy is one of the most overrated Presidents in our history, and, if he had not been assassinated, might not have been reelected in 1964. The validity of his election is questionable, and he accomplished relatively little. The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis required us to make concessions to the Soviet Union with respect to Turkey, and the half-hearted efforts on civil rights went nowhere until after his death. We also know that he regularly cheated on his wife. We should have been less concerned about his religion and more interested in his morals, but the liberal press, despite full knowledge, covered that up. In truth, however, he was merely acting consistent with the example his father provided, which includes requiring Rosemary to submit to a lobotomy, simply because Joe Kennedy could not control her in the manner he desired.

By the way, saying that the lobotomy procedure is "discredited" is not point of view. It is merely stating a fact. For those who think it is point of view, please provide evidence on the number of lobotomies that are being performed today.

John Paul Parks (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)