Cerebral Impaludation - An Ignoble Procedure between Two Nobel Prizes: Frontal Lobe Lesions before the Introduction of Leucotomy

During the 20th century, only two persons have been awarded the Nobel Prize for psychiatric discoveries, Julius Wagner-Jauregg in 1927 for the introduction of malaria inoculation in dementia paralytica and Egas Moniz in 1949 for prefrontal leucotomy. According to traditional narrative, Moniz was inspired by a presentation by Carlyle Jacobsen on prefrontal lesions in chimpanzees at a congress in London in 1935. A few months later, he performed the first operations with the help of a young neurosurgeon. These leucotomies were done using injections of a small amount of alcohol into each frontal lobe through a single burr hole on each side of the skull, and the findings from the first 20 patients were published soon after that in 1936. It has, however, been difficult to reconstruct the path leading Moniz to frontal leucotomy, due to his unwillingness to acknowledge contributions from others. Maurice Ducosté, psychiatrist at Villejuif in Paris, France, started his work with psychiatric patients in the early 1920s with mechanical lesions in schizophrenia and continued with injections into the frontal lobes. Later, he focused on general paresis of the insane in neurosyphilis. Here, he introduced injections of malaria-infested blood into the frontal lobes - cerebral impaludation. Injections were used also in schizophrenia, mania, melancholia, and other psychiatric conditions. These injections were up to 5 mL in volume and could be repeated up to 12 times in an individual patient, which must have created significant lesions. Ducosté performed his procedure in hundreds of psychiatric patients before Moniz attempted leucotomy, and his work was presented in several publications before that by Moniz. Moniz basically used the same entry point, target depth, and technique in his first leucotomies. The major difference was that Moniz used alcohol with the clear intent of producing a lesion. Further, Moniz must have been aware of the work of Ducosté, since they presented papers, one after the other, at a meeting of the French Academy of Medicine in 1932. Even so, Moniz never acknowledged any contribution by Ducosté. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the contribution of Maurice Ducosté to the introduction of lobotomy.

Brain Lobotomy: A Historical and Moral Dilemma with No Alternative?

BACKGROUND

Pioneered in 1936 by Portuguese neurologist and politician Egas Moniz, lobotomy was a definitive lesional surgery on the brain, which consisted of splitting the white fibers in the frontal lobes. Sixteen years later, the first antipsychotic medication appeared at Sainte-Anne Mental Hospital in Paris, drastically reducing the number of surgical lobotomies in France and worldwide. Lobotomy has been one of the most criticized medical procedures in history, with thousands of patients lobotomized around the world and causing serious consequences to their personalities and intellectual function.

METHODS

In the 1940s, the French language was widely used as an alternative language in medical studies, the reason we decided to focus a francophone review on this subject. We conducted the first francophone review of the reported data for the period from 1935 to 1985. Moreover, for a clearer understanding of the background of the time, we also studied the social historical environment.

RESULTS

A total of 1340 cases of lobotomized patients were identified through a review of 29 studies. The indications had varied and were not limited to mental illness. Lobotomy was also performed in some rare cases on patients with peptic ulcers or ulcerative colitis to stop gastrointestinal hemorrhage. The lobotomy techniques were numerous, varying from classic lobotomy to the transorbital injection of radioactive iridium 194.

CONCLUSION

We have discussed the psychiatric, societal, and media contexts that led to the emergence of lobotomy. Our aim was to highlight this period in the history of medicine and place the medical practice into perspective.

Against the Current: Wilder Penfield, the Frontal Lobes and Psychosurgery

Psychosurgery refers to the surgical interruption of the white matter fibres joining the frontal cortex to the remainder of the cortical mantle and to the thalamus, in an attempt to mitigate the manifestations of psychosis. It reached its heyday following World War Two and was abandoned with the introduction of major tranquilisers such as chlorpromazine. Wilder Penfield, unlike most of his contemporaries, had a jaundiced view of psychosurgery. This paper addresses Penfield's early experience with experimental, penetrating brain trauma and with the surgical resection of frontal, epileptogenic lesions, which explain his antagonism towards psychosurgery.

Lobotomies and Botulism Bombs: Beckett's Trilogy and the Cold War

The article argues that Beckett's Trilogy stages the effects of a lobotomy operation on a potentially politically subversive writer, and that the consequences of the operation can be traced in both the retreat of the narrator(s) of the Trilogy into the mind and into comatose mental states and in the detail of the operation itself, based on the 'icepick' lobotomies performed by neurologist Walter Freeman in the late 1940s and early 1950s. To write about extreme psychiatric situations in the post-war period is necessarily to invoke the political uses of psychosurgery with which this article engages. The article goes on to consider the figure of the brain-damaged mind as a Cold War trope in the references to botulism and the motif of the penetrated skull in The Unnamable.

Innovation in medicine: Ignaz the reviled and Egas the regaled

In our current climate of rapid technological progress, it seems counterintuitive to think that modern science can learn anything of ethical value from the dark recesses of the nineteenth century or earlier. However, this happens to be quite true, with plenty of knowledge and wisdom to be gleaned by studying our scientific predecessors. Presently, our journals are flooded with original concepts and potential breakthroughs, a continuous stream of ideas pushing the frontiers of knowledge ever forward. Some ideas flourish while others flounder; but what sets the two apart? The distinguishing feature between success and failure within this context is the ability to discern the appropriate time to accept an innovation with open arms, versus when to take a more cautious approach. And the primary arbiters for whether an idea will catch on or not are the professional audience. I illustrate this concept by comparing the initial reception of two innovative ideas from Medicine's past: sterile technique, and prefrontal lobotomy. Sterile technique was first introduced by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and was initially ridiculed and rejected, with Semmelweis eventually dying in exile. Conversely, lobotomy was accepted and lauded and its inventor, Dr. Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize for his "discovery". This begs the question: why was a technique with the potential to save millions of lives initially rejected, whereas paradoxically, one that compromised and sometimes destroyed lives, accepted? Here I explore and analyze the potential reasons why, suggest how we can learn from these mistakes of the past and apply new insight to some current ethical dilemmas.

Psychosurgery (1974-2014). Withdrawals and revivals. New movements and old inspirations

At the Paris Colloquium held forty years ago, and which this paper celebrates, the issue of psychosurgery had not been tackled yet. At that time psychosurgery was tainted by the controversial history of lobotomy and leucotomy. Supporters of psychosurgery at the time of the Colloquium were preparing their fourth International Conference, which was held in Madrid the following year. This represented a key characteristic of the collective, institutional and symbolic action of psychosurgery practitioners. At the end of the seventies, their strategy changed as noted below. Furthermore, we focus on the special importance of the results presented and commented on by psychosurgery supporters, including its conception and classification throughout the rhetoric historically involved (its supposed ventriloquism, its persuasive strength). Based on this view, we suggest a critical reflection encompassing old and new psychosurgery, while questioning the value of new rhetorical devices for the assessment and presentation of psychosurgery results after the surge of Deep Brain Stimulation.