In 1936, near a century ago, serious mental health conditions in otherwise physically healthy individuals were treated with an experimental surgical procedure. The Frontal Lobotomy, pioneered by António Egas Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist, involved drilling a hole in the skull and severing the nerve connections to the frontal lobes of the brain.
Moniz's work was initially viewed as a breakthrough in the treatment of serious mental health disorders, earning him the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1949.
At that time innovative/experimental medical interventions did not require the rigorous evidence of efficacy and safety that is mandated today (aka: evidence base). This delayed the realisation that the frontal lobotomy often did more harm than good. Some patients died either during or after the procedure, or were left in vegetative states unable to care for themselves. The last such procedure was performed in the United States in the early 1960’s. The lobotomy epoch is now viewed as a shameful stain on the medical profession.
Fast forward to 2024:
Here we are, 88 years after the Moniz's ‘breakthrough’, our major paediatric teaching hospitals are treating a mental condition in otherwise healthy children with an invasive, irreversible, mutilating, sterilising surgical and hormonal cocktail that is devoid of an evidence base.
Drilling a hole in the skull and severing connections with the frontal lobe of the brain doesn’t seem such a bizarre undertaking when compared with concept and practice of ‘gender transition’ of children
(Note: A diagnosis of gender dysphoria is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, or DSM-5.)
Bernard and others, if you did see the report in The Australian newspaper, of Nov 4, “ Human cost warnings in Gender identity Healthcare Row” by Natasha Robinson , she reports in her conclusion that she sought comment from a Victorian based endocrinologist professor and medical ethicist who raised a curious perspective. Curious to me when he characterized gender affirming care as being “ enforced by an irresistible ideological consensus “ and then , in the same breath, could characterize any organized clinical challenge to ( “ no doubt “ !) be part influenced by “ opposing cultural ideologies “
I find difficulty in being able to identify any ideological, cultural or otherwise, drivers behind support for protecting future vulnerable children from irreversible harm.
Perhaps he might be , perversely, characterizing the UN based International Rights of the Child as being ideologically based? If not, to what else may he be referring?
I ask the question, just to try to tease out the source of such a comment, as part of understanding the thinking behind those who are critical of evidence based care and support the rights-based position.
Yes Bernard, it’s probably just that uncomplicated an understanding of said professor’s ambivalent position. Here was me, naively thinking that such a well credentialed endocrinologist and medical ethicist might be able to come up with a plausible argument, which others might have and have shared with him , to be able to sight an ideological basis in supporting evidence based care. He is, after all, Victorian based , where the beast thrives.
In 1936, near a century ago, serious mental health conditions in otherwise physically healthy individuals were treated with an experimental surgical procedure. The Frontal Lobotomy, pioneered by António Egas Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist, involved drilling a hole in the skull and severing the nerve connections to the frontal lobes of the brain.
Moniz's work was initially viewed as a breakthrough in the treatment of serious mental health disorders, earning him the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1949.
At that time innovative/experimental medical interventions did not require the rigorous evidence of efficacy and safety that is mandated today (aka: evidence base). This delayed the realisation that the frontal lobotomy often did more harm than good. Some patients died either during or after the procedure, or were left in vegetative states unable to care for themselves. The last such procedure was performed in the United States in the early 1960’s. The lobotomy epoch is now viewed as a shameful stain on the medical profession.
Fast forward to 2024:
Here we are, 88 years after the Moniz's ‘breakthrough’, our major paediatric teaching hospitals are treating a mental condition in otherwise healthy children with an invasive, irreversible, mutilating, sterilising surgical and hormonal cocktail that is devoid of an evidence base.
Drilling a hole in the skull and severing connections with the frontal lobe of the brain doesn’t seem such a bizarre undertaking when compared with concept and practice of ‘gender transition’ of children
(Note: A diagnosis of gender dysphoria is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, or DSM-5.)
Well done! More evidence for a more cautious therapeutic.approach is nevertheless still needed.
Brick-by-brick, perhaps.
Yes. Unfortunately it’s slow because we’re using rationality to counter irrationality.
Bernard and others, if you did see the report in The Australian newspaper, of Nov 4, “ Human cost warnings in Gender identity Healthcare Row” by Natasha Robinson , she reports in her conclusion that she sought comment from a Victorian based endocrinologist professor and medical ethicist who raised a curious perspective. Curious to me when he characterized gender affirming care as being “ enforced by an irresistible ideological consensus “ and then , in the same breath, could characterize any organized clinical challenge to ( “ no doubt “ !) be part influenced by “ opposing cultural ideologies “
I find difficulty in being able to identify any ideological, cultural or otherwise, drivers behind support for protecting future vulnerable children from irreversible harm.
Perhaps he might be , perversely, characterizing the UN based International Rights of the Child as being ideologically based? If not, to what else may he be referring?
I ask the question, just to try to tease out the source of such a comment, as part of understanding the thinking behind those who are critical of evidence based care and support the rights-based position.
Yes, I read the comment & suspected that 1) he doesn’t know much about the issue & 2) he’s ideologically inclined.
Yes Bernard, it’s probably just that uncomplicated an understanding of said professor’s ambivalent position. Here was me, naively thinking that such a well credentialed endocrinologist and medical ethicist might be able to come up with a plausible argument, which others might have and have shared with him , to be able to sight an ideological basis in supporting evidence based care. He is, after all, Victorian based , where the beast thrives.
It may also reflect poor reporting & commentary on the gender clinic debate in mainstream media & specialist medical media.