Tuesday, 8 November 2011

strange and curious history of lobotomy

The strange and curious history of lobotomy



Deep in the archives of London's Wellcome Collection, that great treasure trove of medical curiosities, is a small white cardboard box.
It's 75 years since the first lobotomy was performed in the US, a procedure later described by one psychiatrist as "putting in a brain needle and stirring the works". So how did it come to be regarded as a miracle cure?
Inside is a pair of medical devices. They are simple. Each consists of an eight-centimetre steel spike, attached to a wooden handle.
"These two gruesome things are lobotomy instruments. Nothing sophisticated," says senior archivist Lesley Hall. "It's not rocket science is it?"

These spikes once represented the leading edge of psychiatric science. They were the operative tools in lobotomy, also known as leucotomy, an operation which was seen as a miracle cure for a range of mental illnesses.
For millennia, mankind had practised trepanning, drilling holes into skulls to release evil spirits.

The idea behind lobotomy was different. The Portuguese neurologist, Egas Moniz, believed that patients with obsessive behaviour were suffering from fixed circuits in the brain.
In 1935, in a Lisbon hospital, he believed he had found a solution. "I decided to sever the connecting fibres of the neurons in activity," he wrote in a monograph titled "How I came to perform frontal leucotomy".
His original technique was adapted by others, but the basic idea remained the same.
Surgeons would drill a pair of holes into the skull, either at the side or top, and push a sharp instrument - a leucotome - into the brain.
The surgeon would sweep this from side to side, to cut the connections between the frontal lobes and the rest of the brain.
Moniz reported dramatic improvements for his first 20 patients. The operation was seized on with enthusiasm by the American neurologist Walter Freeman who became an evangelist for the procedure, performing the first lobotomy in the US in 1936, then spreading it across the globe.
The hyperactive McMurphy, played by Nicholson, is lobotomised in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
From the early 1940s, it began to be seen as a miracle cure here in the UK, where surgeons performed proportionately more lobotomies than even in the US.
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Despite opposition from some doctors - especially psychoanalysts - it became a mainstream part of psychiatry with more than 1,000 operations a year in the UK at its peak. It was used to treat a range of illnesses, from schizophrenia to depression and compulsive disorders.
The reason for its popularity was simple - the alternative was worse.

"When I visited mental hospitals… you saw straitjackets, padded cells, and it was patently apparent that some of the patients were, I'm sorry to say, subjected to physical violence," recalls retired neurosurgeon Jason Brice.

Find out more

  • The Lobotomists was broadcast on Radio 4 on Monday 7 November
  • Listen again using the link below
The chance of a cure through lobotomy seemed preferable to the life sentence of incarceration in an institution.
"We hoped it would offer a way out," says Mr Brice. "We hoped it would help."
There were centres for lobotomy across the UK, in Dundee, North Wales and Bristol. But by far the most prolific lobotomist in the country, and indeed the world, was the neurosurgeon Sir Wylie McKissock, based at the Atkinson Morley hospital in Wimbledon.
"He was one of the great men of medicine of the 20th Century," says Terry Gould, who worked as McKissock's anaesthetist.
Walter Freeman and Egas MonizFreeman (left) built on Moniz's discovery
He believes his former boss performed around 3,000 lobotomies, as part of his famously speedy approach to surgery. "It was a five-minute procedure. Very quickly done," says Dr Gould.
As well as operating at Atkinson Morley, McKissock would travel across the south of England at weekends, performing extra leucotomies at smaller hospitals.
"He was quite prepared to travel down to whatever the hospital was on a Saturday morning and do three or four leucotomies and then drive away again," says Mr Brice.
He says the operation could have dramatic benefits for some patients, including one who was terrified of fire. "Funnily enough she finished up after I had done the operation very much better, but she went and bought herself a fish and chip shop with grossly hot oil in it."




































































I
The reality was very different. "She was irreversibly damaged," he said. Eileen became apathetic and listless. "I've cracked, haven't I?" as she put it. Several years later, she was told that the first operation had failed and she agreed to a second round of psychosurgery.
"I still felt that these were very eminent gentlemen and if were confident would be a success, it would be a success. They did it and it was a disaster," said Sid. Instead of curing her, she became more apathetic and had severe incontinence problems.
However, he had increasing doubts about lobotomy, especially for patients with schizophrenia.
Psychiatrist Dr John Pippard followed up several hundred of McKissock's patients. He found that around a third benefited, a third were unaffected and a third were worse off afterwards.
Although he himself had authorised lobotomies, he later turned against the practice.
"I got increasingly conservative about it because I don't think any of us were ever really happy about putting in a brain needle and stirring the works," he says. "Not a nice thought."
But from the mid-1950s, it rapidly fell out of favour, partly because of poor results and partly because of the introduction of the first wave of effective 


psychiatric drugs.



n 1949, Egas Moniz won the Nobel Prize for inventing lobotomy, and the operation
 peaked in popularity around the same time.
But from the mid-1950s, it rapidly fell out of favour, partly because of poor results and partly because of the introduction of the first wave of effective psychiatric drugs.

What's the modern equivalent?

"I'm not criticising chemotherapy because it's effective but compared to other treatments, in decades to come it will seem to be overly destructive and something that needed to be changed and will be changed.
"It's a very similar judgement, that the pluses outweigh the minuses."
Jack El-Hai, author of The 
LobomotistDecades later, when working as a psychiatric nurse in a long-stay institution, Henry Marsh used to see former lobotomy patients.
"They had been lobectimised 30-40 years ago, they were chronic schizophrenics and they were often the ones were some of the most apathetic, slow, knocked-off patients," he says.
Mr Marsh, who is now one of Britain's most eminent neurosurgeons, says the operation was simply bad science. "It reflected very bad medicine, bad science, because it was clear the patients who were subjected to this procedure were never followed up properly."
"If you saw the patient after the operation they'd seem alright, they'd walk and talk and say thank you doctor," he observes. "The fact they were totally ruined as social human beings probably didn't count."

'I wish I'd never had it'

British housewife Eileen Davie suffered depression after the birth of her second son in 1948. Conventional treatment failed to help her, so her doctor recommended a leucotomy.
Speaking in a BBC documentary in 1976, her husband Sid, who signed the consent forms, said: "I got the impression that it was no more serious than having a tooth extracted."






Start Quote"I still felt that these were very eminent gentlemen and if were confident would be a success, it would be a success. They did it and it was a disaster," said Sid. Instead of curing her, she became more apathetic and had severe incontinence problems.

Lesley Hall
These two gruesome things are lobotomy instruments”
Lesley HallWellcome Collection, London
Walter Jackson Freeman II

Walter Freeman (right) and James Wattsperforming a lobotomy.
BornNovember 14, 1895
Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaUnited States
DiedMay 31, 1972 (aged 76)
EducationYale University
University of Pennsylvania Medical School
Known forPopularizing the lobotomy
Invention of the "ice pick" lobotomy
ChildrenWalter Jackson Freeman III
ParentsWalter Jackson Freeman I
RelativesWilliam Williams Keen, grandfather

Painkillers cost the NHS in England £442m a year


Painkillers cost the NHS in England £442m a year

A variety of painkillersThe amount spent each year on painkillers - also known as analgesics - has been growing

Related Stories

The NHS in England spent more than £440m last year on painkillers.
Figures also show that some doctors spent thousands of pounds prescribing over-the-counter painkillers and flu medication like Anadin and Lemsip.
On average, health trusts in England spent £8.80 per head of population on analgesics.
But in some northern towns and cities the figure was as high as £15, while in parts of the south it was as low as £3.26 per head.
Using figures from the NHS Information Centre and the Office for National Statistics, data analysis firm SSentif found some large differences between the average amount spent on painkillers.
The biggest spenders were Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Rochdale and Blackpool, where painkiller prescription bills in primary care trusts (PCTs) averaged £2.3m.
That is more than double the amount spent in Richmond and Twickenham, Camden and Westminster.
Deprivation link

Drug tariff

Top five spenders per head of population in 2010/11:
  • PCT Middlesbrough: £15.39
  • PCT Hartlepool: £15.01
  • PCT Heywood, Middleton & Rochdale: £14.80
  • PCT Blackpool: £14.29
  • PCT Great Yarmouth & Waveney: £14.25
The lowest five spenders per head of population in 2010/11:
  • PCT Richmond & Twickenham: £3.26
  • PCT Camden: £3.84
  • PCT Westminster: £3.85
  • PCT Sutton & Merton: £3.86
  • PCT Kingston: £3.86
The analysis also showed that across England just over £3,000 was spent on prescriptions for cold and flu remedies like Lemsip and Beechams Powders.
More than £59,000 was spent on over-the-counter painkillers like Anadin and Panadol.
Researchers looked for a link between painkiller prescribing, deprivation and old age.
In the south they found a strong link between prescribing painkillers and age, but almost no link with deprivation.
In the north the link with deprivation was stronger but there was no link to age.
'Good of patients'
Judy Aldred, managing director of SSentif, said that spending on painkillers in the NHS had grown steadily.
"At the moment, the responsibility for the prescribing budget lies with primary care trusts but this is about to change. PCTs are phasing out and GPs are being given greater responsibility, including the management of their own prescribing budgets.
"Although the figures involved were comparatively low, it was concerning to see products such as Lemsip and even Alka-Seltzer XS offered on prescription.
"When GPs begin shouldering the responsibility for prescribing costs, it will be interesting to see if this continues."
But the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Dr Clare Gerada, said GPs were not prescribing painkillers without cause.
"There are very many reasons why GPs prescribe painkillers, including - but not limited to - the changing and increased needs of our ageing population, and the improved use of painkillers themselves, for example in alleviating the symptoms of osteoporosis and osteoarthritis.
"GPs understand the importance of responsible prescribing, and do so in accordance with the standards laid out by the British National Formulary. GPs do not prescribe just for the sake of it; they do it for the good of their patients."
A spokesman for the Department of Health added: "It is important that those living with pain should be able to obtain adequate relief. However the decision to prescribe pain relief must be clinically based on the assessment of the patient's needs.
"There are many factors that affect the number of prescriptions for painkillers dispensed in one particular area and no one factor can be looked at in isolation."

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Sunday, 6 November 2011

The worrying news that drilling for shale gas

Home » WWF news



Fracking, earthquakes and the positive answer to shale gas


2 November 2011






The worrying news that drilling for shale gas probably did cause earthquakes near Blackpool is only part of our problem with ‘fracking’. The other big environmental elephant in the room is that shale gas is simply another greenhouse gas-pumping fossil fuel, and far from the ‘wonder gas’ it’s hyped as.










The report into this year’s unusual seismic activity in Lancashire - released today by Cuadrilla Resources, the British company exploring for natural shale gas in the Bowland Basin – concludes that: “It is highly probable that the hydraulic fracturing … did trigger a number of minor seismic events.”






It just serves to confirm one of our many fears about shale gas. As well as the earth tremors, and concerns over ground and surface water contamination attributed to shale gas drilling, there are of course also the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its extraction and the consequent burning of what is yet another carbon-emitting fossil fuel.






That’s why we’re calling in the first instance for a moratorium on shale gas extraction in the UK until the potential environmental risks around shale gas drilling have been properly researched and the right regulations have been put in place.






But we’re also reiterating that a new ‘dash for gas’ risks taking the world towards dangerous levels of climate change - increasing temperatures by at least 3.5°C according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.






As Nick Molho, our head of energy policy, says: “We’re extremely concerned by the way shale gas is being painted as a ‘wonder gas’ that will slash energy bills in Britain and somehow help tackle climate change.






“Shale gas is still a fossil fuel, and a new dash for gas could see global temperatures skyrocket. There’s also no evidence that it will have a big impact on energy bills, which have in fact been driven up in recent years by a rising gas price.”






Our research - seen most recently in our Positive Energy report, which demonstrates how renewable sources of energy could meet between 60% and 90% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2030 - makes it clear that prioritising energy efficiency and renewables like wind, wave and tidal power, not shale gas, are the best way of reducing our disproportionate vulnerability to the gas price, and of genuinely tackling climate change, in the long term.






The government has to listen to the clear and sensible evidence and steer a straight course to a low-carbon future - resisting the siren calls of the fossil fuel industry


U.N. sponsor fracking



APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OF SHALE GAS RESOURCES


In May 2011, the Shale Gas Production Subcommittee of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Secretary of Energy Advisory Board began exploring safe and environmentally sound methods of extracting natural gas from shale rock formations using hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “fracking”) techniques.  The Subcommittee released its 90-day Interim Report on August 18, 2011.

The Interim Report recommends improvements in:
  • Availability of public information on shale gas operations;
  • Communication between state and federal regulators;
  • Standards to reduce the impact of fracking on air, water, land, and wildlife;
  • Public disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals;
  • Reduction of diesel engine use in the production process;
  • Information sharing among natural gas developers; and
  • Research and development of more effective fracking technologies.

To read the full report, click here.

A final report is expected on November 18, 2011.  More details on the U.S. Department of Energy’s work on shale gas development are available online at www.shalegas.energy.gov.
For comments from former Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and the Energy Future Coalition, on the need for leadership on natural gas and clean fuels, click here.

Joe Frazier has liver cancer


Boxing ex-world champion Joe Frazier has liver cancer

Joe Frazier. File photo Joe Frazier held the world title in 1970-73


Related Stories

US former world heavyweight boxing champion Joe Frazier is in hospice care with liver cancer, his manager says.
He says Frazier - also known as Smokin' Joe - was diagnosed with cancer several weeks ago.
"I would be a liar if I did not tell you it is very serious," Leslie Wolf told Reuters news agency.
The 67-year-old held the world title between 1970 and 1973. He was the first man to beat Muhammad Ali in 1971. He lost the next two bouts with Ali.
Mr Wolf said that Frazier was diagnosed with liver cancer last month and was now in hospice care in Philadelphia.
"Joe is a fighter. Joe doesn't give up," the manager said, adding that doctors and Frazier's team were "doing everything we can".
Frazier won the heavyweight title in 1970 by defeating Jimmy Ellis in New York. He held it until 1973, when he was beaten by George Foreman.
But the boxer is perhaps most widely-known for three great fights with Ali, including the epic Thriller in Manila in 1975

Featured post

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...