Lobotomies were once used to treat this gut disease, part of a shameful medical history

Indigophoton

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
In May 1951, a 35-year-old Boston woman who had been treated for years for ulcerative colitis and a variety of mental disorders — with little success — was given a lobotomy by doctors affiliated with the Lahey Clinic, then in Boston. Her doctors drilled two holes into her skull and cut or melted away two wedges of her brain’s cerebral cortex using a technique developed by James Poppen, a Lahey neurosurgeon.

By August, according to Walter I. Tucker, a Lahey psychiatrist, she was largely free of her physical and mental ailments. By December, after a period of confusion and “laziness,” she was socially active and going to dances, Tucker wrote in the Lahey Clinic Bulletin. She was also gaining weight and working regularly, and was free of “inappropriate worries, phobias, obsessions, and compulsions.” There was no sign of colitis. Her mother, with whom she lived, “was amazed at the change and thinks that the patient is better than she has ever been in her life,” Tucker wrote.

Like most patients in medical history, we don’t know her name. And we have no idea whether she went on to live a normal life — many people who had a lobotomy did not.

I’ve been searching for years for that woman, whom I call “patient zero.” She was the first person to have a lobotomy to treat ulcerative colitis. That barbaric operation helped cement the now-discredited notion that this painful and debilitating disease, which I developed as a boy, is a condition that we bring on ourselves.

For more than half a century, I believed that something in my character or emotions was responsible for the pain in my gut and my bloody diarrhea. I now know that’s not true, thanks to my doctors and to my deep dive into the history of this disease.

https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/12/lobotomy-ulcerative-colitis-shameful-medical-history/

Horrible.

The mind boggles at the sheer numbers of people who have been told they are to blame for their illness because of character deficiency and/or mental weakness.
 
ulcerative colitis and a variety of mental disorders
I think this statement is interesting. I wonder if perhaps the UC was really the only problem and she was the victim of diagnostic overloading. So because the UC was believed to be psychogenic, that would make her worries and anxieties about it disproportionate, so that could get her the labels of anxious and obsessive too
She was also gaining weight and working regularly, and was free of “inappropriate worries, phobias, obsessions, and compulsions.”
This is very telling too. Her worries, etc. were previously 'inappropriate". I expect one of these was losing weight due to UC. A very appropriate thing to worry about, I would say.
 
I just want to say that if the consequence of admitting any "worries, phobias, obsessions, compulsions" could quite plausibly be another round of lobotomy, I would swear to God that I was cured.

Anyway this story is totally implausible. Lobotomy doesn't cure autoimmune disease.
 
Well, I guess I wouldn't try to read into the specifics because the case report is totally unreliable and surely bore little resemblance to the patient's reality, and we probably won't find her. It makes me think I'd like to see independent followup on people pronounced 'cured' by cfs treatments - while we can still get the whole story.
 
On twitter, Anton Mayer shared this article about Freud's patients. I know, its not about UC or about lobotomies but it is about spinning neat stories about the causes of illness that are unlikely to be true. And in Freud's case, people did actually manage to track down his more famous patients, and discovered that quite a few were by no means cured by their "treatment".

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html

warning: the article is OLD (1990) and badly formatted.
 
Perhaps the most startling new disclosures concern the case of Horace Frink, an American psychiatrist who was analyzed by Freud and then chosen by Freud to head the New York Psychoanalytic Society.

In 1922, at Freud's urging, Dr. Frink divorced his wife and married one of Dr. Frink's former patients, Angelika Bijur. She was the wife of Abraham Bijur, a New York millionaire, and an heiress herself.

Telling new details of the case have come from investigations by Helen Frink Kraft, the daughter of Dr. Frink and his first wife. ''Freud used my father, used my mother and used my stepmother,'' said Mrs. Kraft, whose new findings about Freud's involvement in the episode are particularly damaging details.

''My father came home from his analysis with Freud in Vienna in 1921 with the news he was a latent homosexual and his emotional problems would be cured if he divorced my mother and married Mrs. Bijur,'' Mrs. Kraft said.

Judging from a letter Freud wrote him in 1922, Dr. Frink found it hard to accept Freud's diagnosis of latent homosexuality. But the letter also included what seems an outrageous suggestion. ''Your complaint that you cannot grasp your homosexuality implies that you are not yet aware of your phantasy of making me a rich man,'' wrote Freud, who was in the process of engineering the marriage. ''If matters turn out all right, let us change this imaginary gift into a real contribution to the Psychoanalytic Funds.''

This request for donations from his patient, some psychoanalysts say, would be grounds for a malpractice suit, were they to occur today; but others say the request would be acceptable if the funds were not for the analyst himself.
 
Last edited:
On twitter, Anton Mayer shared this article about Freud's patients. I know, its not about UC or about lobotomies but it is about spinning neat stories about the causes of illness that are unlikely to be true. And in Freud's case, people did actually manage to track down his more famous patients, and discovered that quite a few were by no means cured by their "treatment".

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html

warning: the article is OLD (1990) and badly formatted.
That's excellent. I don't know what psychoanalysis is like today but on that evidence it's hard not to conclude that the psychoanalysis of that time was pretty likely to damage the patient.
 
Not everyone bought into the psychosomatic theory. In a spirited 1947 conference debate, quoted in Aronowitz’s unpublished 1985 M.D. thesis at Yale University, Sarah Jordan, head of gastroenterology at the Lahey Clinic, described a typical patient as a “young vigorous human being with all-too-often superior type of striving, ambitious personality — the type of young person that we all like to have as sons and daughters.”

Interesting that even an opponent of psychosomatic theory bought into the type A personality thing. I really wish that instead of aguing about which personality type is / is not most affected, more people would question whether talking in terms of personality traits of of any use whatsoever, not only in relation to illness, but in relation to anything. Just as a in some ways a certain kind of psychology is the new religion, I'm pretty sure that personality traits is the new astrology. There, I've said it. Sorry if that sounds a bit bullish, but I'm a taurus.
 
Interesting that even an opponent of psychosomatic theory bought into the type A personality thing. I really wish that instead of aguing about which personality type is / is not most affected, more people would question whether talking in terms of personality traits of of any use whatsoever, not only in relation to illness, but in relation to anything. Just as a in some ways a certain kind of psychology is the new religion, I'm pretty sure that personality traits is the new astrology. There, I've said it. Sorry if that sounds a bit bullish, but I'm a taurus.
I’m a Taurus too ...what a coincidence! but I think comparing personality profiling to horoscopes is possibly just your generous side showing?

I prefer the simple explanation that it’s more like fortune telling ....is there a man that has a birthday or anniversary in the room? Etc.

Obviously the below describes me perfectly .... so there may be something in it.

“Male Taurus Positive Traits:
  • Generous.
  • Extremely Focused.
  • Loyal.
  • Patient.
  • Determined.
  • Kind Heart.
  • Prefers Simplicity.
  • Stable.”
 
Back
Top Bottom