Talk:Walter Jackson Freeman II

Comment
This is absolutely horrifying to read. 69.129.36.131 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We state that Freeman lost his medical license when a patient died. I'm finding several sources that state that he only lost surgical priviledges at a hospital. -- Pakaran 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The loss of license is just another of the many urban myths about Freeman. I've removed it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is another eminent neuroscientist/biologist/philosopher named Walter J Freeman. I added a note at the bottom so people will not be confused if looking up this person

"Because Freeman lost his license to perform surgery himself after his last patient died on the operating table, he enlisted neurosurgeon James Watts as a research partner.[8]" Under the "lobotomy" section, this statement appears. However, according to this source (Washingtonian), he didn't lose his license until 1967, not back in the 30s or 40s. https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/14/first-lobotomy-us-happened-george-washington-university/ 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Instruments?
The article states Freeman gave up the ice pick in favor of the leucotome, before eventually developing the orbitoclast. My understanding is that the leucotome was never used in the transorbital procedures, so I don't think it is accurate to say he used it in place of the ice pick. The leucotome was similar to a coring knife and was used in the earlier lobotomy procedure pioneered by Moniz. It was designed to penetrate completely through the patient's brain, then a wire loop could be extended and the instrument rotated about the long axis in order to cut tissue.


 * Leucotome certainly does refer to the core-cutting instrument used by Moniz. Unfortunately, many papers and books also use the word "leucotome" to refer to simple icepick-like shafts and orbitoclasts. It is annoyingly imprecise.Fluoborate (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedural differences
I believe the content of the article has confused some details of the two very different lobotomy procedures used by Freeman. The earlier procedure, pioneered by Moniz, was more invasive and required a trained surgeon. In this earlier procedure a hole was drilled on opposite sides of the skull, then the leucotome was passed in one hole and out the other, going completely through the brain. The cases of instruments breaking off in patients' brains occurred when Freeman added sweeping motions to this procedure.

The other procedure more immediately associated with Freeman was the transorbital procedure, the so-called ice pick lobotomy. I don't believe there were any cases of instruments breaking off during this procedure, nor was the leucotome ever used in this type of lobotomy.

Since I don't have any definitive sources in front of me, and because my recollection might very well be incorrect, I've refrained from making any changes to the article. I read excerpts from Freeman's own papers where he described the earlier procedure in detail, but I can't seem to find them now. I believe they were posted on www.lobotomy.info, but that site seems to be down. Can anyone clear this up? 71.75.170.119 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

James Watts
I've created a starter page on Watts. Please help flesh it out with any information and references you have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SquareWave (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Interesting notes and questions
Did Freeman ever use a real, kitchen icepick on a living person? "The Lobotomist" says he used one on a cadaver, but it doesn't say whether he got a bona fide surgical instrument before his first live patient.


 * I believe he had a stronger instrument custom made by a Washington-area toolsmith, who had made some other surgical instruments for him previously. I recall reading that at some point in "The Lobotomist". --168.215.132.137 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting how Freeman justified cutting both sides at once. He gave three reasons: Having two leucotomes in the brain at once keeps the brain from moving laterally inside the skull during the sweeping, cutting movement - one leucotome serves as the anchor while the other cuts. Inserting them simultaneously ensures the lesions are symmetrical (I can't see how symmetry is all that important, if you can't even see what you're cutting). And finally, it makes the procedure faster (like it needed to be any faster. One observer said it took Freeman six minutes a patient, including the time to snap before and after photos).

All that said, I think Freeman had very good intentions. He was very misguided, though, and he thought he was going to cure the world of mental illness and become famous for doing so.Fluoborate (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he began with good intentions. I don't think he ever had ill wishes for his patients, but as his fame waned, he seemed unwilling to consider less invasive options ans seemed unwilling to recognize that it wasn't a cure-all for any and all behavioral difficulties.--RLent (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He basically put all his eggs in the lobotomy basket, he staked his entire career on the procedure. I think had he more generally advocated biological psychiatry, of which lobotomy was just one (very ephemeral) treatment, rather than focus almost entirely on that one procedure, his reputation would be very different today.  In some ways he was partially vindicated in that the biological nature of the mind is now widely accepted. SquareWave (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". I find this blase analysis of a man who was NOT a surgeon and yet performed surgery at $25.00 a pop on the brain for Godssake in mental institutions crowded with people who could NOT fight back absolutely disgusting. Any achievement which this article does not adequately document was grossly eclipsed by the tremendous harm he did to people. He would have been quite at home in Auschwitz working alongside Mengele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This kind of comment is useful neither for development of the article nor in general discussion of medical history's many dark chapters, of which this is just one. Blase analysis is most needed for the most troubling subjects. "He would have been quite at home in Auschwitz working alongside Mengele" -- really? Really??? Yes, and the atomic scientists, and the makers of DES and Thalidomide, not to mention the Little Eichmanns leaping from the WTC -- they're all just like Mengele.
 * Of course you could never reason yourself into a ghastly mistake which harms others -- you're certain of that. Thus you share Freeman's dangerous certainty, but unlike Freeman you're still alive to potentially impose it on others. So maybe you're worse than Freeman, in which case you're worse than Mengele! Wow, isn't the lumping of everything and everyone into one meaningless glob of accusation helpful? EEng (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "This kind of comment is useful neither for development of the article nor in general discussion of medical history's many dark chapters". Pot, meet kettle. Perhaps this person should consider taking his own advice, and following his own standards both for usefulness and objective analysis. Pernoctus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How come people who say, "Pot, meet kettle" never actually explain what they're talking about? Thanks for dropping in, and we'll see you when you log in again in another 2+ years.  E Eng  06:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought the comment was very useful. Freeman was a murderer and your snotty remarks EEng are what is not helpful. I find it pretty hypocritical and laughable when a Wikipedia editor breaks their own rule about civil discourse. Care to respond EEng or are you through with being a putz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESENTISM. EEng 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This article reads like a part of a horror novel and sounds like a horror movie. This Dr. Freeman is just using people as guinea pigs. Perhaps this Dr. Freeman was insane. There is no mention of Dr. Freeman's mentality and own sanity in this article. He sounds like a monster. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:507E:1B68:BBF3:93D3 (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This Talk entry appears to have gone astray in its understandings of historiography, and then in its attitudes/civility. But a primary point of it—the proper manner in which to relate past history, in our time, in this place—remains important, and the matter of WP:PRESENTISM is revisited in the new Talk entry regarding substantiation and NPOV, entered today. I suggest any further discussion along these lines be presented below.
 * 2601:246:C700:F5:497A:5B02:19F3:2CBF (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms
Several "inflamitory" sections have been removed. Such as this one:


 * Freeman would be decried as a moral monster, the lobotomy as one of the most barbaric mistakes ever perpetrated by mainstream medicine.

However, this quote is for the most part accurate. Perhaps there should be a "Criticisms" section to park stuff like this? Proxy User (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It might certainly be worthwhile to present criticisms of the historic practice, as long as they are in largest part from historically informed (scholarly) secondary and tertiary sources, thus not opening the door to original editorializing by our contributors. See mention of the Posner lecture below.
 * 2601:246:C700:F5:497A:5B02:19F3:2CBF (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible renaming
Shouldn't this article be renamed "Walter Freeman (neurologist)"? After all, he was not a surgeon (even in modern medicine, not all who perform surgeries are surgeons). I'm not sure if there is any evidence that he later trained as a surgeon? --Jade0970 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is anyone opposed to the proposed renaming? --Jade0970 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he wasn't a surgeon and never became one. That's why he worked with Watts (who was a surgeon) early in his career, and also why his "new" technique (transorbital lobotomy) was so revolutionary--it didn't require a surgeon to perform it. The article should be renamed. 75.164.208.6 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * " Freeman performed nearly 3500 lobotomies in 23 states, mostly based on scanty and flimsy evidence for its scientific basis " -- His procedures were very legitimate science initially, and produced some very successful results. I'm going to update this page with more details of his early work later this weekend. I've also started an article on Gottlieb Burckhardt, added an image of James Watts James_W._Watts Synaptics (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No criticism?
This man ruined countless lives with his irresponsible and brutal ice pick practices. Surely this needs to be addressed. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely; added POV-section tag. Probably should've tagged the whole article. Sources "amex" et. al. are considerably tougher on Freeman than the article reflects.  He was one of the worst quacks of all time.  In fact one book, well-reviewed, opens by stating he is second only to Mengele as the "most scorned physician of the 20th century".  The article needs to be rewritten with that as a (perhaps not quite the) primary focus.   --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage of criticism of his practice of psychosurgery is definitely merited - provided it is neutrally summarizing genuine reliable sources.
 * Coverage of criticism of his character, for what now seems reckless hubris? I don't know that this is that you meant to propose... anyhow, merited only if genuine reliable sources voiced it, and voiced it clearly.
 * Even though his techniques seem to be largely deprecated, he may still have defenders. They may merit some coverage - carefully bearing WP:UNDUE in mind.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Lobotomobile? Appears to be an urban legend.
When, exactly, did Freeman use the word "lobotomobile"? The citation only leads to a third-hand source. Researcher Jack Al-Hai claims here the word was coined in a biography by David Shutt, more than a decade after Freeman's death. It appears to be another urban legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.19.147 (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it does appear to be an urban legend according to Freeman's biographer, Jack El-Hai (see http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2016/03/fighting-the-legend-of-the-lobotomobile.html), and I have added a note and reference as such (Edit Revision). --24.190.24.119 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Film
https://www.pbs.org/video/american-experience-the-lobotomist-preview/

From Story Corps on PBS: https://storycorps.org/stories/my-lobotomy/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:507E:1B68:BBF3:93D3 (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Substantiation and justification requested, and NPOV matter reraised
While I do not question the mention of a popular name for a medical procedure in a WP article, I do question its persistent use in the article, when the formal terms needed are both known and readily available. I therefore request, first, that the "ice pick" reference be very carefully referenced, establishing both its origins and pervasiveness, expanding upon that as necessary in a separate non-lead paragraph or section (to justify its limited use in the article), and then that the actual term for the surgical instrument, orbitoclast, be exchanged for the inaccurate/imprecise persistent references to "ice picks".

Otherwise, when we choose ourselves to only use the popular language of detractors—rather than use the clinical language of the field about which we are reporting, and only then report on its descriptions, both negative and positive, by others—we creep into editorializing rather than encyclopedic writing. (We are to report the accolades and abhorrence of others, but not our own perceptions and feelings on the matter.)

Furthermore, with regard to tone and NPOV, we have to take caution against being naive present-ists in our perception and description of this individual and the practices he applied (and promoted; see WP:PRESENTISM). Recall that every active agent, medical or otherwise, is a product of their times.

In this regard it is noteworthy that the work of Freeman on the transorbital approach in 1946 was preceded by a decade of surgical work of the same type, by him and many others, globally, beginning with that of Portuguese neurophysician António Egas Moniz, and that Moniz was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1949 (E.g., see https://www.britannica.com/science/lobotomy).

That is to say, the introduction of the transorbital-orbitoclast procedure came in a time when, despite American reservations, global medical perspective on such interventions, pre-thorazine, was supportive, if not adulatory. For a balanced perspective on this, see Prof Miriam Posner's 11th Annual James H. Cassedy Memorial Lecture in the History of Medicine given at the NLM (https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=29010&bhcp=1).

Bottom line, we can present modern scholarly perspectives (not our own) that express horror over past surgical practices. But to do so only, and to ignore comtemporary perspective, and scholarship such as that of Posner that reflects such perspective, is indeed to violate NPOV, though not in the way suggested in the Talk, above. 2601:246:C700:F5:497A:5B02:19F3:2CBF (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but nice try. There is no need to sugarcoat anything here, and there was plenty criticism back in his days already. We are not "using the popular language of detractors"--we are, in fact, using the clinical language in the field, even though (as you should know) that clinical language is frequently used to mask really awful things. (And I'll add that your rather formal writing here also obfuscates a number of things, including an attempt to whitewash the article.) You are grossly exaggerating the tone of the article: the text itself uses "ice pick" only four times, and it is well sourced. In addition, the article links to Lobotomy, and there really is no need to bring any more of that more general content into this article--although we could of course borrow some of that language to bring in here. Freeman practiced at home using an actual ice pick? on grapefruits? on cadavers? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosemary Kennedy
Under 'Medical Practice' there is the claim that "Freeman's name gained popularity despite the widespread criticism of his methods following a lobotomy on President John F. Kennedy's sister Rosemary Kennedy, which left her with severe mental and physical disability."

Reading over the source of this, it appears that Rosemary Kennedy was only named as a victim of the procedure, but per https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/rosemary-kennedy-jfk-sister, which is cited on Rosemary Kennedy's Wikipedia page, her lobotomy became public knowledge in 1987. Thus, her lobotomy could not have been widely criticized at the time. 2600:1700:4E7A:740F:E2DA:CC72:2AD6:160C (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)