Talk:History of psychosurgery

Limited Point of View tag

While the subject of psychosurgery and violence is important, especially considering the growing impetus for the application of ethics in neuroscience, this trend is not represented in this entry on the history of psychosurgery. There are only a limited number of cited authorities in this entry and these are quoted over and over again ( six of them), limiting the points of view and scope of this article. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think tha article can be significantly improved if the effects (both positive and adverse) of the different procedures were better described. Currently, the article mostly talks about which symptoms are used to indicate the need for a certain procedure. More attention about the ethical debates could not hurt either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • I agree with Randykitty "the article can be significantly improved if the effects (both positive and adverse) of the different procedures were better described. Currently, the article mostly talks about which symptoms are used to indicate the need for a certain procedure" and "ethical debates included."Exactly!. Thus the tag should be replaced until those additions are made and other authors cited. Yes I did try to add several references on reliable secondary sources but whole sections addressing some of these very issues as well as history were removed. References added were reliable, notable journals and books including Dr Faria, Dr Apuzzo, and Dr Walker, etc. Perhaps some editing was requires but not removal. All those sources and information which included data on psychosurgery effect and results may have also needed expansion and editing but not removal. All this material, updated information came from reliable sources and notable journals. Again, the only one that was kept was the one from World Neurosurgery, incidentally an entry I created. Surgical Neurology International is another notable journal entry I created. All those references need inclusion. Moreover, neuroscience ethics Neuroethics from a historical context are also needed. Exactly the same thing happened with the other entry. And work needs to be done there as well.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Tag removal

I am removing the tag because suggestions for additional topics are not the equivalent of needing a clean-up. Any editor can of course add text that they think might improve an article as long as it isn't cut and pasted, or irrelevant (for example, relating to trepanation). Staug73 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Improvements still needed and tags should not be unilaterally removed by user until satisfactory improvements are made

The basic science, the neuroanatomical and physiological basis for psychosurgery, need to be discussed and referenced with specific reliable sources — e.g., the authoritative book By Stephen P. Salloway - The Neuropsychiatr y of Limbic and Subcortical Disorders by Jeffrey L. Cummings, Paul Malloy, Paul F. Malloy (Editor), Jeffrey L. Cummings (Editor) Stephen P. Salloway

Basic neuroscience is important; psychosurgery did not develop in a vacuum. For example interruption of Papez ring, and the neurological basis for disorders of the subcortical structures resulting in alterations in mood, mind and behavior, including pathological aggression and violence. Most of the discussion is lobotomy but there were other forms of psychotherapy with some basic science basis for their use. And after all, there is a lobotomy entry already.

The history, ethics, and recent developments need to be discussed, and neither are all of the procedures mentioned, so results and effect remain incomplete in both pieces. The two articles could remain separate if of all this is addressed, otherwise the two entries may need to merge.

Other procedures barely mentioned are hypothalamic lesions and stimulation, amygdalotomy (and the work of Drs. Vernon Mark and Frank Ervin), deep brain stimulation (which was and may still be used for treatment, although it is not ablative, including the seminal work of Dr Jose Delgado, etc.), thalamotomy (both in adults and children, including the work of Dr. Orlando Andy). Needless to say the results and effects of all of these procedures need to be better discussed.

Yes, this is a controversial subject and the controversies need to be address. Historical controversies should include at least citing the litigation resulting from amydalotomy in the 1970s that even included the writer Michael Crichton, Harvard, and government imposed guidelines.Current problems such as the neuropsychiatry of violence, neuroscience ethics, and treatment of individuals who still may require surgical intervention according to the guidelines established in the 1970s. To address all these issues, additional sources should also include at least:

Ballantine HT Jr, Giriunas IE. Advances in psychiatric surgery. In: Rasmussen T, Marino R, editors. Functional neurosurgery. New York: Raven Press; 1979.

U.S. Public Health Service. Determination of the secretary regarding the recommendations on psychosurgery of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Fed Regist 1978.

The already mentioned authoritative book By Stephen P. Salloway - The Neuropsychiatr y of Limbic and Subcortical Disorders by Jeffrey L. Cummings, Paul Malloy, Paul F. Malloy (Editor), Jeffrey L. Cummings (Editor) Stephen P. Salloway. Salloway's textbook is absolutely essential!

Sweet WH, Obrador S, Martin-Rodriguez JG, editors. Neurosurgical Treatment in Psychiatry, Pain, Epilepsy. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1977.

Delgado, Jose (1986). Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper and Row.

The three articles by Faria MA in Surgical Neurology International. "Violence Mental Illness and the Brain — A Brief History of Psychosurgery" should be used and added to the references. It summarizes results, and discusses ethics, as well as current trends and controversies, despite title alluding only to history. This is the best update to date on the whole subject. These articles are not "editorials" but "Historical Reviews," and I'm not trying to promote them, just as I'm not trying to promote Salloway's or Robison's or Mark's, but I don't see why they should not added as they are all reliable sources, notable journals or books.

In Psychosurgery, the subheading: "From 1960s to the Present" was a needed addition I was allowed to make (truncated) but it needs more info with sources. The same can be said for the subheading, "Individuals who underwent psychosurgery" where effects on those individuals were added. This was the largest addition made by the user in the last 5 days but it is insufficient.

The following two works that I cited are still there but most of the info from them was deleted. The relevant info from these articles need to be used, including results of procedures, controversies, and ethics:

Robison, RA; Taghva A; Liu CY; Apuzzo ML (2012). "Surgery of the mind, mood and conscious state: an idea in evolution". World Neurosurg 77: 662–686.

Mark, Vernon (1970). Violence and the Brain. New York: Harper and Row.

The History of psychosurgery entry should involve more relevant history; the Psychosurgery entry more procedures, results and effect, and current controversies and developments. Both entries need to address also the underlying basic neuroscience and ethical dilemmas, historically and currently. Faria MA and Robison RA are fundamental additions.

The additions that were made in the last 5 days are insufficient, as to both results and effects and ethics, merely adding two subheading and slight verbiage for frankly window dressing. The ethics subheading is a mere paragraph rehashed from info already present. I think the appropriate tags should be added —until all these issues are better addressed, information added as to include at least the references I mentioned. Information I added was deleted; it probably needed editing but not deletion.

These entries do not need to be doubled in size, just modest additions made to improve the article as was recommended, as well as adding these new sources.

Toward these ends of improving both entries for Wikipedia, Tags for requesting improvement were added but were removed solely by the opinion of one user who has apparently appropriated these entries as his own!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• The article has been vastly improved with the added sections of "Effects" and "Ethics." I still think some of the material that I mentioned above is missing, which should be added with references from reliable and notable sources.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing this article

As per above, I 'm adding pertinent information from reliable sources and notable researchers when possible. I also had to edit the sentences that contradicted each other "... the results of an operation on the frontal lobes of six patients. The operation was a topectomy, in which parts of the frontal, parietal and temporal cortex were excised." The operations could not be in the frontal lobes in one sentence, and then in three different lobes in the next one! The operations in the 6 patients were in fact resections in frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes. As I mentioned before, this article has been vastly improved in the past week by the previous editor, and the additions and edits that I plan will be limited, and carried out gradually as I have time.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

• It was I who added both the Faria and Robison references, as well as the Walker reference to this Wikipedia entry, which had become stale under your tutelage. It was because of my prodding and Randykitty's suggestion that this article was improved in the last weeks, as I mentioned and credited in the Talk Pages. I also corrected a mistake in the second paragraph of the article that had been inserted by you (Staug73) incorrectly.I don't know what your problem is with Surgical Neurology International, as a journal, and Faria as a scholar, they are both notable as per Wikipedia. Your objections, frankly, seem to be personal rather than professional. Faria cited Robison; true but he did not "copy" Robison. Again I added Robison, which you had neglected. And "copying" is a dishonest statement. It is also dishonest to say that Faria's article is an essay-editorial. it is classified as a Historical Review article, which it is; as such it may have scholarly opinions as it does. It is OK to leave Robison here as he described that painting before Faria. As far as "irrelevant sentences," the sentence you deleted help explain why psychosurgery developed in time, useful info in an entry on "the History of Psychosurgery," and therefore very pertinent. I wrote "strong evidence" because I cited four references. Of course, it is not "not what the source actually says"; of course, otherwise it would be within quotation marks! The Haggard reference therefore needs to stay to give historical background and source the material. Faria and Robison also write about this with different words. All of these references need to be there. If the disagreement persist, it should be resolved in the Talk page or by an administrator as per Wikipedia policy, not by your unilateral deletions of material as well as useful references. Incidentally, another book that should have been cited in this entry long ago is The Neuropsychiatr y of Limbic and Subcortical Disorders by Jeffrey L. Cummings, Paul Malloy, Paul F. Malloy (Editor), Jeffrey L. Cummings (Editor) Stephen P. Salloway. That such a reference has not been included under this entry is unconscionable. We should get there once again in good time.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Faria reference

@Staug73:, could you tell me what exactly the problem is with the Faria reference? In your concise edit summaries, you write " Faria is not a reliable source - his article is an essay-editorial, not much about psychosurgery and mostly copied from other articles". Why is it not a reliable source? As far as I can see, it's a review article (exactly the kind of WP:secondary sources that we should base an article upon), not an "editorial". And the difference between an "essay" and a review is quite fleeting, of course. As for "copied from other articles", are you accusing Faria of plagiarism? Or do you simply mean that Faria is citing the work of others, but did not contribute any original research himself? That is exactly what a review article should be. I would appreciate if you could stop edit warring about this reference (goes for both parties) and, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, start discussing here about the issues that you disagree about. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Miguel Faria’s article is an essay editorial, as described in the abstract: “A history of these developments up to the 21st century will be related in this three-part essay-editorial, exclusively researched and written for the readers of Surgical Neurology International (SNI).” The article has relatively little about psychosurgery – a lot of it is about Miguel Faria’s views on law and order, etc, and about other topics such as DBS, Trepanning, Phineas Gage, etc, which all have their own Wikipedia articles.

In Part 1 the sections on psychosurgery cover the work of Gottlieb Burckhardt, Egas Moniz and Walter Freeman. The material on psychosurgery has been very lightly researched, and relies almost exclusively on one article, that by Robison et al. I could find only 8 references in these sections, and 4 of them are not related to psychosurgery (references 1, 2, 5 and 17). Of the references relating to psychosurgery one is a video (13) and one is a reference to a book by Freeman and Watts (6). However I think Faria probably hasn’t read the book as the only mention he makes of it uses almost exactly the same words as used in the Robison et al article:

Faria: “In 1942, Freeman and Watts published the first edition of their classic monograph Psychosurgery and reported on 200 patients: 63% were improved; 23% had no improvement: and 14% were worsened or succumbed to their surgery.”

Robison et al.: “In 1942 Freeman and Watts wrote a monograph describing their first 200 cases, of which 63% improved postoperatively, 23% had no change, and 14% had a negative outcome, including the aforementioned fatalities”.

So that leaves two articles that the author has read about psychosurgery from Burckhardt to the end of Freeman’s career. (If you look at the lobotomy article in Wikipedia you can see that in fact there are a great many books and articles covering this topic that a researcher could have consulted.) One of the two articles used by Faria (10) is an article by Anastasia Kurcharski from which the he just picks up a couple of phrases, for example:

Faria: “Additional prestige for the operation was gained when Moniz received the Nobel Prize…”

Kucharski: “As a group, the lobotomists gained additional prestige when Moniz was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1949.”

Almost all the text on psychosurgery in Part 1 comes from the Robison et al article, and some of it follows Robison et al so closely that it amounts to copying. Staug73 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• • This is an unwarranted personal attack on an author that has no place in Wikipedia. This is personal. The Robison article is cited several times in Faria's article, as it should be, and it is a review article. The information deleted from the Wikipedia entry is necessary for the transition and flow of the article in the first two paragraphs. Staug73 is not even addressing this, but is instead attacking an author he must personally know and dislike, given the savagery and intensity of his remarks; in so doing he is placing Wikipedia needlessly at risk of a lawsuit. He is wrong, misguided, and apparently not putting the interest of Wikipedia ahead of its personal vendetta.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • I have looked at those papers: Not only are those authors (i.e., Robison and Kucharsky) cited at the end of those sentences, which Staug did not indicate) but there is citation of figures, which of course are absolute numbers but there is no "copying", string or words implying plagiarism, a false but serious offense. The statements are referenced to the original authors in this Review article. Staug73 should be reprimanded for making such a false accusation, impugning the character of a notable and living person, and violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

LeBassRobespierre, just a point of clarification: when you say "This is personal", are you intending that to be read as you are Faria or a close associate of Faria? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! No. It is just the intensity of his opposition to my editing in the History of Psychosurgery; then his claiming I was promoting Faria; and then from there accusing my reference as been a copy of another: Faria "copying" Robison. And then from there the attack was on Faria as the author of one of the references I added. I added those same references as well as several others, as stated in this Talk Page. I thought the accusation was unfair, when I knew it was not true. Faria quoted Robison several times with attribution. There are similarities in the beginning of the two papers as they cover the same ground, but then they diverge in very different directions. Where the similarities were, the primary author was cited. The accusation was therefore malicious, and it smacked as if Staug73 knew Faria, the attack being therefore personal. I have copies of the articles side by side. I added both as reference to the entry.

"Copying" to me is plagiarisim, which is very serious and defamatory that should not be bandied about casually. The personal attack was to Faria, who I know as an editor and author of the journal Surgical Neurology International, an entry which I had also created. I have also created entries for other journals and neuroscience societies, as well as done major edits on the entries of other neuroscientists. I don't think the problem against me is personal, as long as I don't post in the entries History of Psychosurgery or Psychosurgery. Nevertheless, the false accusation also rubs on me for citing the article.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of examples:

Robison et al: “…Sigmund Freud favoring psychotherapy and the somatic approach of Emil Kraeplin advocating aggressive intervention, including options such as electroconvulsive therapy or an insulin or metrazol-induced coma.”

Faria: “Freud recommended psychotherapy…. Kraeplin, in contrast, preferred more aggressive intervention with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and insulin shock therapy”.

Robison et al: “Freeman… using his experience in neuropathology, undertook postmortem examinations of the patients, in which he noted retrograde degeneration…”

Faria: “With his knowledge of neuropathology, Freeman was able to visualize and analyze retrograde degeneration in postmortem examination of patients who had undergone the procedure and died later.”

Staug73 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Again you failed to mention that both Robison et al and Kucharski were cited in Faria's Historical Review article. As shown in all 4 of Staug73 examples, there is no "copying" of texts, but mere citation of information as is required This is a capricious, baseless, or malicious accusation, most likely due to personal or professional rivalry or worse. Plagiarims, which is what Staug73 implies by "copying," requires solid evidence, he has not shown; on the contrary it show proper citation in a Review article! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

---

A request has been made about this at WP:3O. It cannot be accepted, as more than two editors have contributed substantially. Also, I think that expert knowledge is required to opine on the use of the Faria reference. I recommend asking a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. That is quite an active Wikiproject, and imo is the most likely source of a competent opinion. --Stfg (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Stfg, I will do as you suggest.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• in regards to any reference (be it "Faria"s", etc.) it must first comply with MEDRS Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No. MEDRS applies to biomedical content and claims and that is different from detailing the history of a procedure and context in which it arises (i.e. much of such a history does not rest on a series of claims as to biomedical facts or truths; where it may, MEDRS can happily apply). As regard the removal of text above supported by Faria, I think the decision to remove was correct. The sentence was nonsensical. I'm sceptical of the linkage between very early trepanation and 'mental illness'; at the least it's conceptually suspect (in what sense is this actually psychosurgery as the term is understood?) and anachronistic and certainly informed sources tend to reject the association (Berrios, etc.); the extraction of the 'stone of madness' is unlikely to refer to actual procedures ... but, hey, there's a reliable source and all that. Burkhardt and the like is really the best, coherent, starting point for this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• The first Faria reference only supports the statement already in the text; controversial yes, but it supports the view already articulated in the text adding to the other reference. The Second Faria reference supports the fact that the development of DBS is related to psychosurgery, whether or not it's considered itself psychosurgery. The references are needed to support a POV of two debatable concepts.98.16.9.222 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I read Faria's work on Psychosurgery and his stuff encompasses, not only some operations such as amygdalotomy and thalamotomy, but also the historic reasons for the emergence of psychosurgery, which was not really well covered in the articles. It's true Faria has suggestions towards the end of the article for the future that may be construed as POV, but I think this broad perspective is needed. Other authors and references cited in both of the articles, especially in the entry Psychosurgery, cover in outline at least the full spectrum of the technical operations used in psychosurgery, so it does not bother me that Faria has less operative technical details in his articles and more historical and theoretical points. As it has been mentioned, DBS is considered by many authors part of psychosurgery, if not closely related, so that inclusion of DBS, which in fact was used as treatment at times, does not bother me either. The articles should be kept especially in this entry on the History of psychosurgery, where they are essential. I also read the article by Robison, RA; Taghva A; Liu CY; Apuzzo ML that has also been mentioned, and actually I found it deficient. That is one article that probably should be omitted because the second half is virtually an infomercial for stereotactic equipment, and it refers to a number of conditions that are not psychosurgery, such as treatment for Parkinson's Disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. On the other hand the Faria references and material are essential to this entry dealing with history, ramifications, and controversies and they should be kept. Philipegalite (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)