undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvore2y ago0 comments

I don't know why you are so insistent on this.

With chemotherapy, we have literally have so much empirical evidence that the benefits far outweigh the risks. We understand the mechanism of action of chemotherapy enough to assess its risk profile.

With lobotomies, we understand enough about the brain now to know that the risk profile is extremely bad. Additionally, empirical evidence has shown that outcomes are pretty bad anyway! We have better tools and ways to understand the brain now to not give people a brain-destroying "treatment" that is basically a random, low chance of success. Would you reasonably prescribe getting shot in the head as a treatment if it had worked on one person?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

tetris112y ago· 1 in thread

(Sorry, I'm not trying to be beligerent, only to keep an open mind.)

It's kind of why I wanted to know more about the stories of the people the procedure worked for, just in case there really is some evidence it provides a benefit in some niche category. Though, yeah, I'm not betting on it.

burnished2y ago

You aren't wrong to be curious, but you are going to get unhelpful and emotional answers when asking about this.

You should genuinely read the wikipedia page on this topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy it will answer your questions and reveal the horror of what you are asking about and why people respond the way they do.

To sum up though; the procedure was mostly performed on women and children, who were also frequently not aware of what was being done to them (not consenting), on men it was mostly performed on homosexuals. The best case outcomes came at the cost of 'decreased psychic complexity', a sort of 'permanent childhood'. The worst cases don't bear repeating here.

I would also like to caution you, when reading on this, note whose voice is present; is it ever the subject who reports positive outcomes?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse