Graduate studies at Western
Medicine Studies 1 (4):353-366 (2009)
|Abstract||Between 1935 and 1970, tens of thousands of people worldwide underwent brain operations due to psychiatric indication that were intended to positively influence their mental state and behaviour. The majority of these psychosurgical procedures were prefrontal lobotomies. Developed in 1935, the procedure initially met with fierce opposition, but was introduced in numerous countries in the following decade, and was employed up until the late 1960s. This article investigates why psychosurgery was widely accepted after World War II. It examines the effects it was hoped psychosurgical intervention would have, the undesired outcomes in which the method could potentially result, and the significance these outcomes were given. The analysis of scientific articles of the period as well as one case study show that the goal of the operation was, first and foremost, to help the mentally ill adapt to the social order inside and outside the mental institution. After initial criticism, changes in personality, severe physical side-effects and death were accepted in order to reach this goal. Thus, with psychosurgical intervention the social adjustment of patients, also in their own interest, was rated higher than physical and psychic integrity. This widely held view shows that after World War II a post-bourgeoise order of the subject dominated, according to which an individual was to adapt and to function in the interests of the collective. According to the assumption, the triumph of lobotomy was related to the development of a new conception of the self that made possible a broad implementation of the procedure and that was consolidated through psychosurgery|
|Keywords||Conception of the self History Lobotomy Psychiatry Psychosurgery Social adjustment|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Grant Gillett (2011). The Gold-Plated Leucotomy Standard and Deep Brain Stimulation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):35-44.
David K. Chan (2006). How War Affects People. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 13 (1):1-5.
Ernest K. Bramsted (1972). Hitler's War and the Germans. Mood and Attitude of the German People During the Second World War. Philosophy and History 5 (1):106-108.
Thomas L. Perry (1989). Global Peace as a Professional Concern, I. Journal of Business Ethics 8 (2-3):167 - 171.
Brian Orend, War. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Avia Pasternak (2011). The Collective Responsibility of Democratic Publics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (1):99-123.
Anders Engberg-Pedersen, The Empire of Chance: War, Literature, and the Epistemic Order of Modernity.
Steven Metz & Phillip R. Cuccia (eds.) (2011). Defining War for the 21st Century. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
Yigal Levin & Amnon Shapira (eds.) (2011). War and Peace in Jewish Tradition: From the Biblical World to the Present. Routledge.
G. Long (2012). Disputes in Just War Theory and Meta-Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 11 (2):209-225.
Yigal Levin & Amnon Shapira (eds.) (2012). War and Peace in Jewish Tradition: From the Biblical World to the Present: The Third Annual Conference of the Israel Heritage Department Ariel, Israel. Routledge.
Matthis Krischel (2010). Perceived Hereditary Effect of World War I: A Study of the Positions of Friedrich von Bernhardi and Vernon Kellogg. [REVIEW] Medicine Studies 2 (2):139-150.
Fuchuan Yao (2011). War and Confucianism. Asian Philosophy 21 (2):213 - 226.
Re'em Segev (2007). Lesser Evil and Responsibility: Comments on Jeff McMahan's Analysis of the Morality of War. Israel Law Review 40 (3):709-729.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-11-26
Total downloads1 ( #292,381 of 739,347 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?