A version of lobotomy still performed today

Post Reply New Topic

I just read of a version of lobotomy that is still performed today, albeit very rarely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_cingulotomy

I strongly oppose this treatment. Its purpose is to deliberately damage the brain so so-called side effect is sought for effect. For that exact reason I oppose shock therapy too.

Unlike lobotomies, which were performed by blindly jamming ice picks into the patients brain via the eye socket, and moving it around to destroy part or all of the frontal lobe, and which were often done without the consent or fully informed consent of the patient, a cingulotomy is a precision procedure, only done with the consent of the patient, as a last resort when other treatments have failed.

One of the few disorders it is used to assist in treating is OCD, and only very rarely. The odds that a patient with severe, treatment resistant OCD would be turned down upon requesting this procedure are very high. The goal of the procedure is not to actually alleviate the OCD directly, but make the person responsive to medications to treat the disorder. The success rate is low yet statistically significant and in most instances the patients have no lasting long term negative effects.

So, instead of randomly destroying random parts of the brain they are precisely aiming to destroy the part they are interested in destroying, and nothing else. But fact remains: they are still destroying the brain. In fact, speaking of the part they DO try to destroy its fate is even WORSE than in case of lobotomy. At least in case of lobotomy that specific part of the brain can be "lucky enough" to be missed, while in case of cingulotomy it is sure to be destroyed. True, cingulotomy is better in a sense that nothing else will be destroyed, but why destroy anything at all? You can't "undo" it later in life once you regret what you have done!



If they didn't have lasting negative effects that would be contradiction. The entire reason the treatment works is BECAUSE the part of the brain that does "undesirable" thing (OCD, depression, or whatever the case might be) is destroyed. So if you say there is no lasting effects, then the part of the brain in question will still function just fine, so they would still have OCD or depression just like they used to. The very fact that cure is effective is an evidence that it ruins the brain. Now ruining the brain in order to cure the illness is stupid; its like hitting the computer with a hammer to make it stop saying 2+2=5. So then computer will stop saying it but only because it stopped saying anything else as well since its been ruined.

The alternative to psychosurgery is often death.

As for ECT, it doesn't damage the brain, it induces seizures.

1. In a lot of cases it is the psychiatrist that thinks the patient is a threat to themselves which is not true.

2. The cingulotomy aims at curing OCD, which is not life threatening.

3. If the patient is in fact a threat to themselves, physical restraint is far better option. At least physical restraint is reversible, while brain damage is not.



Well the reason seizures have the "benefitial" effect is because they damage the brain. If it wasn't for that, there wont be any so-called benefit.

Well, Roman, if you have valid evidence to back up your claims, then you'd be better off presenting them in criminal court, rather than posting just the accusations on a social website.

Speaking of "evidence" of crimes of psychiatry, the guilty present that evidence all on their own! When first psychiatric drug, thorazine, was invented, it was called "chemical lobotomy". That in itself reveals its original purpose. Then, when lobotomy went out of fashion, they of course stopped using that name and the only time you will hear it is when people who oppose psychiatry are talking. But the fact is that anti-psychiatry community never invented this name, thats the name that doctors themselves were using back at the time!

Or, speaking of cingulotomy, its even more obvious. Just read the wikipedia page and they say it right there that they are trying to destroy a specific part of the brain that they explicitly named!

The only problem is that court cases can only be made case by case, while I believe shock therapy should be stopped altogether for EVERYONE. By the way, there were two cases:

Elizabeth Ellis http://www.mindfreedom.org/elizabeth

and

Ray Sandford http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... e_therapy/

I believe one or both of these people won the case and they dont get electroshocked any more. But they only won after few YEARS of having been electroshocked on WEEKLY basis. So they can't "undo" the damage to their brain that happened over all these years.

By the way, speaking of Elizabeth Ellis, this brings up another interesting point. One of the documents "in favor" of shocking her said that she was "not responsive" when doctors tried to discuss treatment with her. Well what the f**k do they mean "not responsive"? I thought she was VERY clear about her desires not to be shocked as she kept stating it day after day. Yet because she was "not responsive" during the specific 5 minute discussion they just had a mind made up that she won't respond, ever.

This is analogous to my own difficulties of finding a girlfriend as well as a professor to work with. There are many examples of girls AND professors who "tried to talk to me" and I was "not responsive". Then after the fact I would be loud and clear about the issues I was "not responsive" about, yet they didn't want to hear it because it was too late.

Now in my case I never had shock therapy. So my fate is not as bad as Elizabeth Ellis. At least I dont have brain damage so my issues can be "undone" once I do have professor and girlfriend. But still the analogy of "not responsiveness" is VERY clear thats why I am sympathetic towards her case. And also another analogy is how NT-s damage people who THEY perceive as "different" -- be that shock therapy done to schizophrenics and bipolar OR social alienation done to aspies.

Cingulotomies do not aim to cure OCD. The aim is to make the patient more responsive to the medications. And as I said, unlike lobotomies, they are not forced, and actually very difficult to obtain. The success rate is only 30%.

Now lets think logically why would the patient become more responsive to medications. One explanation is that a certain part of the brain is less responsive than the rest of the brain. Thus, they destroy the "less responsive" parts and that way the meds can successfully act on "more responsive" ones. But the problem here is that each part of the brain has its own purpose. The "less responsive" part of the brain does some functions that no other part of the brain can replace. So that is the irreversible damage I am concerned about.



Assisted suicide is also not forced, and is also very difficult to obtain. But that doesn't change the fact that assisted suicide is wrong. Similarly, assisted brain damage is likewise wrong.



1. Clearly, any given patient hopes to fall into said 30%. And if they do, the success would be the evidence of brain damage.

2. Given that they are doing it under the proper brain scan, there is 100% chance of ruining the brain. Thus, the rest 70% got brain ruined for nothing.

and seizures don't damage the brain?

Anyways with ECT or that procedure if someone consents and are fine with it great.......I would just hope such extreme treatments don't get forced on people who don't want it.

There is no credible evidence that ECT causes any structural damage to the brain. The same is not true of a completed suicide or of a suicide attempt.

Some people have significant damage from ECT, it just may not be structural or statisistically significant (which is different than saying it never happens).

I've had serious (short term) memory issues and have been to the point where I could see how that could be completely debilitating if it was worsened enough (when you can't remember your own thoughts from one 30-second interval to the next, you've got problems).

So, my reason for being hesitant about ECT would be that (I'd bet) no one could tell me if my particular medical stuff (and add in ASD, hypothetically) gives me an increased risk of adverse effects. Maybe in 20 years it's found that people w/my stuff and/or ASD have a hundred-fold increase in serious adverse effects. The fact that significant damage isn't found in normal populations doesn't mean much If that's the case.

So you are assuming if there are no structural differences, there is no change. If so, this logic implies that there is no improvements either. If thats the case, what is the purpose of ECT to begin with?

By the very fact that ECT is being used, doctors confess that some of the changes (namely, benefits) are not visible. If so, this means that adverse effects are not visible either. You can't have it both ways!

Yes, lets.

Of course there are changes. There are measurable changes. There is no measurable "damage," unless you count effects like loss of memory and functional connectivity as "damage."