Struggle for Justice
Psychosurgery.org is deeply gratified by the overwhelming positive response to the Associated Press article. If you are as shocked as we are by the Nobel Foundation's snarky attitude, and as upset by the way they are dodging responsibility in this matter, please write them at comments@nobel.se and tell them that the only decent thing to do is REVOKE Egas Moniz's Nobel Prize.
To any Nobel Laureates that are reading this - please contact Christine at christine@psychosurgery.org and tell us what you think of this situation. We think that the Nobel Prize for lobotomy sullies all of the other Prizes. You should not have to be associated with a human rights violation like psychosurgery. We hope that you will support us in our struggle for justice. We need your help.
Thank you to all the kind people out there ...
To any Nobel Laureates that are reading this - please contact Christine at christine@psychosurgery.org and tell us what you think of this situation. We think that the Nobel Prize for lobotomy sullies all of the other Prizes. You should not have to be associated with a human rights violation like psychosurgery. We hope that you will support us in our struggle for justice. We need your help.
Thank you to all the kind people out there ...
4 Comments:
While the tragedies that happened due to lobotomy are terrible, I believe that trying to revoke a Nobel Prize is a fruitless and wasteful exercise. Progress often leads to some side-effects which are unforeseen, and sometimes overlooked. To punish Moniz because he simply was doing something progressive is not going to help the victims of lobotomy. His work might've been wrong (by today's standards), but there is no doubt that without mistakes there simply would've been no progress made in other areas. Moniz, like many others, actually thought his work would save lives. People going down this avenue should consider how they used to treat 'patients' before the 1930's, Moniz was at least trying to find a way to 'cure' people rather than just locking them up for good. Sometimes the 'cure' can be worse than the illness, but [from what I know] psychosurgery came fairly late in medical history. This unfortunately increases the likeliness of error on the part of any progressive ideas.
I think it would be more beneficial to spend time and money on helping those in need in the present. There are still many strides to be taken to treat disorders of the brain.
Crabber338, you are greatly mistaken. Moniz was not trying to help people, he was trying to win a Nobel. If you knew anything about the history of lobotomy you would know that.
The end does not justify the means, and it's usually the people who have suffered nothing who make cavalier comments like yours.
I agree that you should spend your time and money helping people today. I suggest you get started.
The notion that the "side effects" of lobotomy were "unforseen" is ludicrous. The surgeons had the best possible vantage point, and knew early on that they were causing severe mental disablility.
Their reasons for continuing were partly scientific, there's no doubt psychosurgery is interesting. Horribly, disturbingly interesting. There is a strong incentive to distort or withhold the truth from the public as long as possible so as to create the largest possible experimental population. And sure enough, the newspapers at the time were full of stories (planted by the surgeons) about how lobotomy was a cure for mental illness.
But let's not forget that Walter Freeman became rich and famous, as he earned royalties from the "Freeman-Watts Standard Lobotomy", and criss-crossed the country in his special lobotomobile. The most selfish and crude motivations were also at play.
Though the jig is up on lobotomy, so to speak, sadly, the descendants of the lobotomists are busily at work, and have learned the trade secrets from their elders . . .
The movement to revoke Moniz' prize is a worthy one. Even if it is not ultimately "successful", it can still be a success.
If public awareness is raised where once there was idle complacency, that's good. Perhaps some contemporary tragedy can be averted.
If the Nobel committee decides to stand by its past mistakes in spite of all facts, then at least we learn something about them.
Post a Comment
<< Home