Authentic Self and Last Resort: International Perceptions of Psychiatric Neurosurgery.

Psychiatric neurosurgery has resurfaced over the past two decades for the treatment of severe mental health disorders, with improved precision and safety over older interventions alongside the development of novel ones. Little is known, however, about current public opinions, expectations, hopes, and concerns over this evolution in neurotechnology, particularly given the controversial history of psychosurgery. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a study with eight focus groups in Vancouver and Montreal (Canada; n = 14), Berlin (Germany; n = 22), and Madrid (Spain; n = 12). Focus group texts were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis in the language local to each city, guided by the theoretical framework of pragmatic neuroethics. Findings indicate that participants across all cities hold concerns about the last resort nature of psychiatric neurosurgery and the potential impact on the authentic self of patients who undergo these procedures. The views captured serve to advance discussion on the appropriate timing for psychiatric neurosurgery, promote sound health policy for the allocation of this resource, and foster scientific literacy about advances for mental health internationally.

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.

Comparison of philosophical concerns between professionals and the public regarding two psychiatric treatments.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one's own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics. METHODS: We analyzed (1) online public comments and (2) the medical and bioethics literature, comparing the discussions of pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions in psychiatry in each source. RESULTS: Overall, the public discussed philosophical issues less frequently than academics. For the two types of psychiatric interventions, we found differences between the academic literature and public comments among all themes, except for personal responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal some of the similarities and discrepancies in how philosophical issues associated with psychiatric treatments are discussed in professional circles and among the public. Further research into what causes these discrepancies is crucial.

Reader comments to media reports on psychiatric neurosurgery: past history casts shadows on the future.

BACKGROUND: Comments made by readers in response to news articles about current events can provide profound insights into public understanding of and perspectives on those events. Here, in follow up to a paper published last year in this journal, we examined reader comments to articles in newspapers and magazines about neurosurgical interventions for treating psychiatric illness. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of these comments (N = 662 coded units of data) posted in response to 115 newspaper and magazine articles from four countries (Canada, USA, Germany, and Spain) between 2006 and 2017. The comments were coded using an iteratively refined coding scheme that was structured around four a priori categories based on results from the parent study and two new categories that emerged. RESULTS: We found many references to historical psychosurgery and mostly negative and pessimistic comments about ablative neurosurgical interventions. Comments to deep brain stimulation were more positive, and comments to optogenetics most controversial. We also found many expressions of distrust of medical professionals in the context of interventions on the brain and concerns about social and individual control. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results suggest there is still much work to be done to raise public awareness about re-emerging and new neurosurgical interventions. Balanced discussion is needed if these approaches are to find a place in health care for psychiatric disorders.

Psychosurgery, ethics, and media: a history of Walter Freeman and the lobotomy.

At the peak of his career, Walter J. Freeman II was a celebrated physician and scientist. He served as the first chairman of the Department of Neurology at George Washington University and was a tireless advocate of surgical treatment for mental illness. His eccentric appearance, engaging personality during interviews, and theatrical demonstrations of his surgical techniques gained him substantial popularity with local and national media, and he performed more than 3000 prefrontal and transorbital lobotomies between 1930 and 1960. However, poor patient outcomes, unfavorable portrayals of the lobotomy in literature and film, and increased regulatory scrutiny contributed to the lobotomy's decline in popularity. The development of antipsychotic medications eventually relegated the lobotomy to rare circumstances, and Freeman's reputation deteriorated. Today, despite significant advancements in technique, oversight, and ethical scrutiny, neurosurgical treatment of mental illness still carries a degree of social stigma. This review presents a historical account of Walter Freeman's life and career, and the popularization of the lobotomy in the US. Additionally, the authors pay special attention to the influence of popular literature and film on the public's perception of psychosurgery. Aided by an understanding of this pivotal period in medical history, neurosurgeons are poised to confront the ethical and sociological questions facing psychosurgery as it continues to evolve.

Responding to Moral Distress and Ethical Concerns at the Intersection of Medical Illness and Unmet Mental Health Needs.

Some of the most difficult clinical ethics consultations involve patients who have both medical and mental health needs, as these cases can result in considerable moral distress on the part of the bedside staff. In this article we examine the issues that such consults raise through the illustrative example of a particular case: several years ago our ethics consultation service received a request from a critical care attending physician who was considering a rarely performed psychosurgical intervention to address intractable and life-threatening agitation and aggression in an adolescent patient for whom standard treatments had proven unsuccessful. We consider strategies that may be useful in addressing not only the ethical dilemmas or the clinical problems, but also the emotional, social, and moral distress that arise in delivering care in such complex cases, in which standard routine practices of care have been exhausted. In addition, we explore the processes that led to this situation and suggest ways to promote early recognition and intervention for similar cases in the future.

Banning the Soviet Lobotomy: Psychiatry, Ethics, and Professional Politics during Late Stalinism.

This article examines how lobotomy came to be banned in the Soviet Union in 1950. The author finds that Soviet psychiatrists viewed lobotomy as a treatment of "last resort," and justified its use on the grounds that it helped make patients more manageable in hospitals and allowed some to return to work. Lobotomy was challenged by psychiatrists who saw mental illness as a "whole body" process and believed that injuries caused by lobotomy were therefore more significant than changes to behavior. Between 1947 and 1949, these theoretical and ethical debates within Soviet psychiatry became politicized. Psychiatrists competing for institutional control attacked their rivals' ideas using slogans drawn from Communist Party ideological campaigns. Party authorities intervened in psychiatry in 1949 and 1950, persecuting Jewish psychiatrists and demanding adherence to Ivan Pavlov's theories. Psychiatrists' existing conflict over lobotomy was adopted as part of the party's own campaign against harmful Western influence in Soviet society.

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: past, present, and future, including prefrontal lobotomy and Connecticut's contribution.

Psychosurgery, a subspecialty of functional neurosurgery, has been used in the treatment of psychiatric illness, intractable pain, and, controversially, as ameans to control and modify violent human behavior. Prefrontal lobotomy, a procedure developed in the 20th century, arose as a result of pioneering research, includingwork done atYaleUniversity in New Haven. Prominent clinicians throughout Connecticut contributed to the development of modern psychosurgery. Neuroethics or ethics of neuroscience is essential to the study and practice ofpsychosurgery. New technology has provided improved accuracy with less morbidity. The progressive replacement of ablative procedures with deep-brain stimulation and restorative neurosurgery offers new perspectives in the treatment of some psychiatric conditions.

On deciding to have a lobotomy: either lobotomies were justified or decisions under risk should not always seek to maximise expected utility.

In the 1940s and 1950s thousands of lobotomies were performed on people with mental disorders. These operations were known to be dangerous, but thought to offer great hope. Nowadays, the lobotomies of the 1940s and 1950s are widely condemned. The consensus is that the practitioners who employed them were, at best, misguided enthusiasts, or, at worst, evil. In this paper I employ standard decision theory to understand and assess shifts in the evaluation of lobotomy. Textbooks of medical decision making generally recommend that decisions under risk are made so as to maximise expected utility (MEU) I show that using this procedure suggests that the 1940s and 1950s practice of psychosurgery was justifiable. In making sense of this finding we have a choice: Either we can accept that psychosurgery was justified, in which case condemnation of the lobotomists is misplaced. Or, we can conclude that the use of formal decision procedures, such as MEU, is problematic.

[Informed consent and neuromodulation techniques for psychiatric purposes: an introduction]. / Il consenso informato e gli interventi di neuromodulazione chirurgica in psichiatria: un'introduzione.

The aim of this review was to investigate informed consent-related issues concerning vagus nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. We searched the principal medical databases for studies concerning informed consent, as well as ethical and deontological issues in psychosurgery. Data were critically analysed. We also provided guidelines for the evaluation of accuracy of the informed consent in such treatments. Despite major deontological and ethical implications, there is substantial lack of information pertaining informed consent decision-making in psychiatric patients with an indication for psychosurgery. In clinical research studies, deep brain stimulation and vagus nerve stimulation have been mainly used in drug-resistant major depressive disorder, Tourette syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Existing data on efficacy and tolerability, as well as those studies indicating the risk for incapacity in drug-resistant severe mental disorders, suggest the need to achieve a better understanding of the capacity to consent to psychosurgery in patients affected by mental disorders. Informed consent decision-making in clinical trials of deep brain stimulation and vagus nerve stimulation in psychiatric patients is largely unknown and deserves further investigation.

Informed consent for special procedures: electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Informed consent has become the cornerstone of the expression of patient's autonomy for ethical and sound patient-physician relationships. However, some severe psychiatric diseases markedly hinder the ability of selected patients to ensure a proper consent. Confronted with mentally disabled individuals whose condition may lead to violence or inflicting it on others, society must carry out its duty of protecting those who are particularly vulnerable, while respecting and protecting these disabled individuals. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent update in the indications and more detailed understanding of electroconvulsive therapy, and the technical ability of obtaining less invasive or reversible techniques of psychosurgery, has renewed interest in these impressive and efficient techniques. Specifically, the emergence of new and promising cerebral neurostimulation techniques for treating Parkinson's disease have led to considering their extension to severe psychiatric disorders. This method can mimic the effects of 'conventional' psychosurgery, but in a potentially reversible and adaptable way, thus avoiding many undesirable side-effects of lesional surgery. Ensuring an ethical decision-making process and the appropriateness of consent becomes of paramount importance. SUMMARY: Consent can be relatively easy to secure in selected patients who are often fully aware of their torments (such as those suffering from severe refractory depression of obsessive-compulsive disorders) whose suffering may be such that they are ready to accept, or for that matter demand, such actions. However, the duty of physicians is to realize that pains should always be taken to do as much good (and as little harm) as possible, while respecting the freedom of decision of those who seek to help.

Direct brain interventions to "treat" disfavored human behaviors: ethical and social issues.

As neuroscience learns more about the causes of human behaviors, it will give us new ways to change those behaviors. When behaviors are caused by "brain diseases," effective actions that intervene directly in the brain will be readily accepted, but what about direct brain interventions that treat brain-based causes of socially disfavored behaviors that are not generally viewed as diseases?

Egas Moniz (1874-1955) and the "invention" of modern psychosurgery: a historical and ethical reanalysis under special consideration of Portuguese original sources.

The Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz (1874-1955) is often regarded as the founder of psychosurgery. He performed the first prefrontal leukotomy in 1935­about 75 years ago­with the help of neurosurgeon Almeida Lima (1903­1985) [corrected]. In contrast to the psychosurgical interventions performed by the Swiss psychiatrist Gottlieb Burckhardt (1836-1907), Moniz's interventions on the white brain substance caught great attention worldwide. As a matter of fact, it was this repercussion that led to the award of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1949, an award that is still highly controversial today. The goal of the present article is to reconstruct the historical background of the first leukotomies, the tangible expert debate since 1935 on the indication and legitimacy of these interventions, and their contemporary and recent (ethical) evaluation. Special focus will be set on the original Portuguese literature, which has been given too little attention thus far in the English-language literature.

Deep brain stimulation between 1947 and 1987: the untold story.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the most rapidly expanding field in neurosurgery. Movement disorders are well-established indications for DBS, and a number of other neurological and psychiatric indications are currently being investigated. Numerous contemporary opinions, reviews, and viewpoints on DBS fail to provide a comprehensive account of how this method came into being. Misconceptions in the narrative history of DBS conveyed by the wealth of literature published over the last 2 decades can be summarized as follows: Deep brain stimulation was invented in 1987. The utility of high-frequency stimulation was also discovered in 1987. Lesional surgery preceded DBS. Deep brain stimulation was first used in the treatment of movement disorders and was subsequently used in the treatment of psychiatric and behavioral disorders. Reports of nonmotor effects of subthalamic nucleus DBS prompted its use in psychiatric illness. Early surgical interventions for psychiatric illness failed to adopt a multidisciplinary approach; neurosurgeons often worked "in isolation" from other medical specialists. The involvement of neuro-ethicists and multidisciplinary teams are novel standards introduced in the modern practice of DBS for mental illness that are essential in avoiding the unethical behavior of bygone eras. In this paper, the authors examined each of these messages in the light of literature published since 1947 and formed the following conclusions. Chronic stimulation of subcortical structures was first used in the early 1950s, very soon after the introduction of human stereotaxy. Studies and debate on the stimulation frequency most likely to achieve desirable results and avoid side effects date back to the early days of DBS; several authors advocated the use of "high" frequency, although the exact frequency was not always specified. Ablative surgery and electrical stimulation developed in parallel, practically since the introduction of human stereotactic surgery. The first applications of both ablative surgery and chronic subcortical stimulation were in psychiatry, not in movement disorders. The renaissance of DBS in surgical treatment of psychiatric illness in 1999 had little to do with nonmotor effects of subthalamic nucleus DBS but involved high-frequency stimulation of the very same brain targets previously used in ablative surgery. Pioneers in functional neurosurgery mostly worked in multidisciplinary groups, including when treating psychiatric illness; those "acting in isolation" were not neurosurgeons. Ethical concerns have indeed been addressed in the past, by neurosurgeons and others. Some of the questionable behavior in surgery for psychiatric illness, including the bygone era of DBS, was at the hands of nonneurosurgeons. These practices have been deemed as "dubious and precarious by yesterday's standards."

Criteria for the ethical conduct of psychiatric neurosurgery clinical trials.

There is an urgent need for an effective therapy for treatment-refractory mental illness. Trials ongoing globally that explore surgical treatment, such as deep brain stimulation, for refractory psychiatric disease have produced some promising early results. However, diverse inclusion criteria and variable methodological and ethical standards, combined with the sordid past of neuromodulation, confound trial interpretation and threaten the integrity of a new and emerging science. What is required is a standard of ethical practice, globally applied, for neurosurgical trials in psychiatry that protects patients and maintains a high ethical benchmark for clinicians and researchers to meet. With mental illness, as well as treatment resistance, reaching epidemic proportions, ethically and scientifically sound clinical trials will lead to effective and safe surgical treatments that will become vital components of the clinicians' armamentarium. Ethical criteria, such as the ones proposed here, need to be established now and applied in earnest if the field is to move forward and if patients with no other therapeutic options are to receive much-needed treatment.

Neurosurgeons' perspectives on psychosurgery and neuroenhancement: a qualitative study at one center.

OBJECT: Advances in the neurosciences are stirring debate regarding the ethical issues surrounding novel neurosurgical interventions. The application of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treating refractory psychiatric disease, for instance, has introduced the prospect of altering disorders of mind and behavior and the potential for neuroenhancement. The attitudes of current and future providers of this technology and their position regarding its possible future applications are unknown. The authors sought to gauge the opinions of neurosurgical staff and trainees toward various uses of neuromodulation technology including psychosurgery and neuroenhancement. METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 47 neurosurgery staff, trainees, and other neuroclinicians at a quaternary care center. RESULTS: Several general themes emerged from the interviews. These included universal support for psychosurgery given adequate informed consent and rigorous scientific methodology, as well as a relative consensus regarding the priority given to patient autonomy and the preservation of personal identity. Participants' attitudes toward the future use of DBS and other means of neuromodulation for cognitive enhancement and personality alteration revealed less agreement, although most participants felt that alteration of nonpathological traits is objectionable. CONCLUSIONS: There is support in the neurosurgical community for the surgical management of refractory psychiatric disease. The use of neuromodulation for the alteration of nonpathological traits is morally and ethically dubious when it is out of sync with the values of society at large. Both DBS and neuromodulation will have far-reaching and profound public health implications.

The subjective brain, identity, and neuroethics.

The human brain is subjective and reflects the life of a being-in-the-world-with-others whose identity reflects that complex engaged reality. Human subjectivity is shaped and in-formed (formed by inner processes) that are adapted to the human life-world and embody meaning and the relatedness of a human being. Questions of identity relate to this complex and dynamic reality to reflect the fact that biology, human ecology, culture, and one's historic-political situation are inscribed in one's neural network and have configured its architecture so that it is a unique and irreplaceable phenomenon. So much is a human individual a relational being whose own understanding and ownership of his or her life is both situated and distinctive that neurophilosophical conceptions of identity and human activity that neglect these features of our being are quite inadequate to ground a robust neuroethics.