Talk:Walter Jackson Freeman II

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Instruments? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Procedural differences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  James Watts 

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

text: " 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)
thread_title: Possible renaming

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lobotomobile? Appears to be an urban legend. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Film 

message: 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)
thread_title: Substantiation and justification requested, and NPOV matter reraised

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rosemary Kennedy