5 ms·
Thanks for some nuanced thoughts. I do understand the usual arguments for these surgeries at the time, which often overlap with arguments for why Freeman should
by clnq 3y ago
Thanks for some nuanced thoughts. I do understand the usual arguments for these surgeries at the time, which often overlap with arguments for why Freeman should have been absolved of accountability for his actions:
Other methods were not available, the broader medical community did not seem to object, the medical standards were less developed, it was more acceptable for physicians to experiment and learn as they went, some good came out of it, and Freeman did seem to believe in the efficacy of the procedures.
Some of these arguments are stronger than others. Freeman's showmanship (including a death of a patient for a photo-op in the middle of a surgery), and refusal to wear sterile gloves were against medical standards at the time. The broader community was misinformed, as anecdotal evidence of successful procedures was spread by supporters of the procedure, while the atrocious consequences of it were under-reported. Freeman believing that the procedures were effective is difficult to disprove, but we know that such an assumption depends on veracity of a man who has shown to not be a trustworthy professional, and we do know that Freeman knew that the majority of his procedures had significant negative consequences. Some good came out of not only Freeman's work, but also work of the regime-aligned Nazi scientists, especially in the fields of birth control, medical imaging, and aerospace; and this very extreme case illuminates that invention doesn't always justify the means. The argument about the evolution of medicine in the US is more convincing - indeed, the current evidence-based medical approach evolved over time from a much more experimental one. This can be seen in the change of Hippocratic oaths medics would take throughout history. The argument for no better treatment being available is also a strong one - we have a framework around compassionate use or compassionate access to experimental treatments when nothing else is available today. But overall, the arguments, except for a few, are weak with hindsight.
It is important to acknowledge that Freeman faced no repercussions for his actions while he was alive - neither legal nor the widespread moral condemnation he is associated with today. People truly did not know what to make of it. But I ask - if a crime against humanity is committed but it takes humanity some time to recoil and it goes unpunished, is it not a crime?
It's definitely a very interesting topic. I personally don't believe that Freeman didn't know what he was doing, or that he had no reason to know his work was unethical. A man of his age and education shouldn't be as naive. It's more difficult to blame the families, though in this case, the memoir and other recollections do say that the stepmother was probably motivated by a hatred for her son.
- motleyhatch 3y ago> the broader medical community did not seem to object It seems there was quite a bit of controversy between Freeman and the more scientifically conservative medical community. James Watts, who originally partnered with Freeman and shared a practice with him, left "in disgust" due to the irresponsible application of lobotomy. Other professionals, like John F Fulton, have criticized Freeman's procedure for its lack of precision and broad collateral damage. In the mid 1950s, the whole field was changed fundamentally by the introduction of the first antipsychotic drugs. Yet Freeman continued to perform his operation well over a decade after that. > Freeman faced no repercussions for his actions while he was alive He did eventually lose his medical license in 1967 and lived to see his views fall out of favor with neurologists/surgeons and patients alike (but not for long, he died a few years later). I agree that it's a fascinating part of our recent history. I wish there was some way to get insight from the future about which of our currently accepted treatments will be seen as inhumane or counterproductive or simply bizarre in 50 years.
- clnq 3y agoThanks for the additional context about the medical community. Yes, it seems like individual people objected to Freeman’s work in his lifetime, even if there was no overall consensus on it. This is important to note, because it further diminishes the argument that Freeman could have naively believed he was doing good. Especially in the 60s. As for repercussions, it seems like Freeman was specifically told by some authority not to perform these procedures anymore in Feb 1967, but his license to practice as a physician was not revoked. Yes, indeed, medicine is evolving rapidly. I’m betting that our diet fads will look very barbaric in 2050, when we should have much better metabolic agents, not unlike Semaglutide. Transplanting donor organs that would be rejected will hopefully also fall out of fashion. And, I would hope, our reactive, emergency-based approach to healthcare will be replaced by preventative efforts. Nevertheless, I don't think we’re doing anything that will be seen in 50 years to be quite as barbaric as we see lobotomies now.
- chasil 3y agoI will respond to you. I very much admire your questions, and the mind behind them. > But I ask - if a crime against humanity is committed but it takes humanity some time to recoil and it goes unpunished, is it not a crime? You must admit that crime is subjective. Let us consider leaded gasoline and freon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. This man is a supervillain of the environment. He was a hero of his day. Accolades are subjective. >But overall, the arguments, except for a few, are weak with hindsight. We must escape from many things, to escape from our past. Are you sure that you know them all? Pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, envy, and gluttony. To pursue: Humility, meekness, zeal, chastity, generosity, charity, and temperance.