Sure. But also be careful of bullshit science denial and thinking lay persons are qualified to join scientific discourse from an armchair based on their guts.
“Many doctors” like how many doctors believe reptiles run the world. That’s true. Look it up- because..
1. If I’m in the toilet 2 people on that toilet would be “many,” probably too many. Notice it says “many” and not “most” or a “majority”? Let’s pin that.
2. “Many” people believe all sorts of crazy shit. Billions of people on earth- many is easy to find. Many spouses cheat, Should you always question your partner alive or faithfulness? Perhaps if there is some probable cause to question a specific thing.
Let’s dig deeper though. It wasn’t really the “scientific community” that was so hot on lobotomy. And it wasn’t “established” in the sense that it was a new and experimental procedure that was not fully understood.
What WAS established was that it had an effect. Which- 1. We don’t have to question. That’s proven and kinda no shit. If you poke someone’s brain with an ice pick you’re almost 100% gonna see a change in their behavior. At this point in human knowledge most children are aware that brain damage will change people.
2. Look at how lobotomies tended to be used and by whom. They were used to essentially make “problematic” people docile and quiet. Without the scope of drugs and treatments we have today- there wasn’t really a way to treat many conditions with any success and- well- it’s common for new parents to occasionally think of harming their babies. Sometimes you just want it to be quiet or to have some peace. Most people dealing with those with severe and disruptive mental health issues can relate that care for someone who is loud or violent etc. unpredictably can sometimes be a burden. Know many people who wish for a psychotic child or loved one? Lobotomies shut people up.
Acceptance largely followed that path. Institutions and individuals could justify it as humane” I mean, removed from the processors room “they don’t feel a thing” sounds humane- and visiting an asylum full of screaming and crying people self harming and harming others will instantly give and impression of suffering. A quiet orderly space where patients sit in the garden or stare out the window is easier for the observer to say: “these people must be happier than when they were creating about bugs in the walls and trying to pull their eyes out…”
For staff it is much easier to deal with patients who are sedate- even modern psychiatric hospitals use drugs to induce similar states in problematic patients. The observable difference in “before and after” on a lobotomized patient could appease a public and law makers and book keepers and skeptics who would claim mental wards were wasted that couldn’t actually help most people. Funding. Legitimacy. A pragmatic solution that allows people..
.. to justify guilt away. And a convenient tool that was often used against those with “overly progressive” beliefs or who might pose a social problem to an established order. Certain minorities for example- and don’t forget that women of independence were at this time still often accused of mental health issues- and a few- including prominent names like the Kennedys- were lobotomized simply for that reason- to make them compliant when they refused to be “good little women” and follow the social order for women in a conservative society.
This is where this “warning” fails hardest. The message itself shows lack of thinking or knowledge. Science supports using chemotherapy- but if doctors and the public started using chemotherapy to treat hiccups that would probably be bad right? There are cases, RARE cases, where lobotomy can be actually medically beneficial. People have had parts of the brain removed to save their lives and have maintained all or most of their function and cognition. It is a medically valid procedure when used in cases where we have no other or better options and the prognosis is better than not treating. But many saw it as a bandaid to slap on other problems. The issue wasn’t the science- it was the application- the same way that nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs use the same science but we can argue against the application.
The lobotomy was essentially “pop science” and politics and greed pushing it along at that time with a pinch of misplaced good intentions here and there.
The takeaway is to question one’s self and question society. To question science where the scientific method hasn’t been observed. Those working in psychology and psychiatry and related disciplines face a stigma that to be honest- isn’t wholly without merit but also isn’t entirely accurate. These disciplines are often treated as pseudo science. In much of history they basically have been for the large part- guess work and conjecture and non scientific approaches. Modern psych disciplines are much more scientific generally, but there are many things about the human mind that are unknown and we don’t have the technology or ability to even try to find out, or to do so ethically. Much is subjective because we are dealing with “feelings” and such things that aren’t easily quantifiable or reproducible. We are dealing with not just biology but a state of a mind- a unique puzzle made through specific accumulated experiences and genetics and other factors. The brain and the mind are complex…
.. and they don’t lend themselves well to broad all encompassing science. Gravity works the same on Jupiter as Earth UAT differ magnitudes, but pathologies and such can vary greatly in fundamental mechanism across humans. A rocket works the same across most of space, but a drug or treatment doesn’t work the same from one person to the next. So those in sciences of the mind and brain are dealing with some complex problems that are very hard to even figure out to start untangling, so take it with a grain of salt that these fields may or may not compare to other “hard sciences.”
With that covered, in the end lobotomies did what science observed they would- they radically altered a persons personality and state of being. It is up to society to decide how to apply scientific knowledge. We decided to use it as a weapon against minorities and “troublemakers” for the convenience of those who weren’t the patients, or that being a vegetable was better than being “mentally ill.”
Social decisions were behind the brief prominence of the lobotomy, not science. If you watched your autistic cousin or child come back as a vegetable, how much more data would you personally need to decide the procedure isn’t something you’d want to have done on you? But… if you found your autistic loved one suddenly more convenient to deal with and felt some relief that you could now conduct your life more freely… you might rave about the benefits to anyone else you met with a similar situation perhaps…. Humans split the atom and then dropped it on other humans. We decide how to use technology, science just shows us what is there.
Indeed. The closest solace or justice we can give is perhaps to not repeat these mistakes and create a present that in decades or almost a century from now people will be shaking their heads at our own cruel barbarism. Rosemary Kennedy- a woman who didn’t want to conform to socially accepted gender roles and behaviors, and for that her life was ruined by an establishment that considered conformity to those standards paramount to her well being and happiness, who considered her mental unfit or somehow “off” for her identity defying gender norms and social conventions. An “embarrassment” and such. Perhaps they can name a drag queen story hour in her honor and we can see how much society has changed. I suppose the fact we aren’t lobotomizing people who don’t conform to the norm is a step up- of one considers telling people they don’t exist or shouldn’t be seen in public etc. is a step up. With so much belief in such people being “off” I wonder what treatment society might decide was best?
Lol. You used less words but that’s basically my conclusion. Lobotomies did what scientific method said. You remove a chunk of brain, a person that used to cause problems and was hard to control is now not. The science works, and anyone observing pre/post procedure could see the changes easily in general.
Ethically a medical procedure requires informed consent and for a procedure like this and when dealing with people with mental health issues, informed consent can be a tricky topic- but the ethics were sus at best.
Though I also see it as a moral cause. There were people who honestly believed this was a procedure that helped. For example- visibly and chronically upset people or people who were self harmful etc. could be “given peace.” Families given peace. And from the perspective that severely mentally affected people don’t tend to “do anything” or “experience life fully” they said- if you already don’t function- not functioning and being chill and calm is kinder to everyone.”
Not saying that’s right or correct- I do not agree that the logic is sound here- but the morals and values of the people along with the ethics issues and perhaps politics are to blame. Science is a tool, it can be dangerous if we are careless or foolish or malicious or misguided. Dangerous tools aren’t themselves an issue- they are a mirror like most may form of power, give a human power and find out who they really are. Our flaws are shown in the fruits of our labors.
Reply
deleted
· 1 year ago
Members of the scientific community rarely use a term like "settled science", especially not for theories with little to no widespread consent within the community*. It would mainly be used in relation with i.e. basic physics, like geophysics.
It's a term often used when it comes to the topic of man-made climate change, which is probably the reason someone made this meme. It's not normally used when it comes to medical treatments, except maybe for something like immobilizing a fractured bone, but not for anything as controversial as the infamous lobotomy "treatments" of the 50s and 60s. These were widely challenged and criticized from the very beginning by many medical scientists, which ultimately caused the end of it. .
So at best that meme is made by someone who isn't really familiar with the scientific method or - more likely imo - by someone trying to discredit science in general by using an obvious strawman argument here.
“Many doctors” like how many doctors believe reptiles run the world. That’s true. Look it up- because..
1. If I’m in the toilet 2 people on that toilet would be “many,” probably too many. Notice it says “many” and not “most” or a “majority”? Let’s pin that.
2. “Many” people believe all sorts of crazy shit. Billions of people on earth- many is easy to find. Many spouses cheat, Should you always question your partner alive or faithfulness? Perhaps if there is some probable cause to question a specific thing.
Let’s dig deeper though. It wasn’t really the “scientific community” that was so hot on lobotomy. And it wasn’t “established” in the sense that it was a new and experimental procedure that was not fully understood.
2. Look at how lobotomies tended to be used and by whom. They were used to essentially make “problematic” people docile and quiet. Without the scope of drugs and treatments we have today- there wasn’t really a way to treat many conditions with any success and- well- it’s common for new parents to occasionally think of harming their babies. Sometimes you just want it to be quiet or to have some peace. Most people dealing with those with severe and disruptive mental health issues can relate that care for someone who is loud or violent etc. unpredictably can sometimes be a burden. Know many people who wish for a psychotic child or loved one? Lobotomies shut people up.
For staff it is much easier to deal with patients who are sedate- even modern psychiatric hospitals use drugs to induce similar states in problematic patients. The observable difference in “before and after” on a lobotomized patient could appease a public and law makers and book keepers and skeptics who would claim mental wards were wasted that couldn’t actually help most people. Funding. Legitimacy. A pragmatic solution that allows people..
The lobotomy was essentially “pop science” and politics and greed pushing it along at that time with a pinch of misplaced good intentions here and there.
With that covered, in the end lobotomies did what science observed they would- they radically altered a persons personality and state of being. It is up to society to decide how to apply scientific knowledge. We decided to use it as a weapon against minorities and “troublemakers” for the convenience of those who weren’t the patients, or that being a vegetable was better than being “mentally ill.”
Ethically a medical procedure requires informed consent and for a procedure like this and when dealing with people with mental health issues, informed consent can be a tricky topic- but the ethics were sus at best.
Though I also see it as a moral cause. There were people who honestly believed this was a procedure that helped. For example- visibly and chronically upset people or people who were self harmful etc. could be “given peace.” Families given peace. And from the perspective that severely mentally affected people don’t tend to “do anything” or “experience life fully” they said- if you already don’t function- not functioning and being chill and calm is kinder to everyone.”
It's a term often used when it comes to the topic of man-made climate change, which is probably the reason someone made this meme. It's not normally used when it comes to medical treatments, except maybe for something like immobilizing a fractured bone, but not for anything as controversial as the infamous lobotomy "treatments" of the 50s and 60s. These were widely challenged and criticized from the very beginning by many medical scientists, which ultimately caused the end of it. .
So at best that meme is made by someone who isn't really familiar with the scientific method or - more likely imo - by someone trying to discredit science in general by using an obvious strawman argument here.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMED13B0777B/abstract