Amputated Souls

James Anthony

Description

Amputated Souls explores the subject of psychiatry and psychiatric practices and the assault upon human rights and human freedom constituted by these practices, tracing the history of lobotomy, ECT and antipsychotic drugs, and their use, from 1935 to the present day.

Sujets

• Sociologie, société et politique
• Psychiatry
• Psychology
• History of medicine

Informations

• Publié par: Andrews UK
• Date de parution: 20 décembre 2012
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781845404512
• Langue: English

Extrait

Title page
AMPUTATED SOULS
The Psychiatric Assault on Liberty
1935-2011
ANTHONY JAMES



Copyright page
Copyright © Anthony James, 2013
The moral rights of the author have been asserted.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism and discussion.
Originally published in the UK by
Imprint Academic, PO Box 200, Exeter EX5 5YX, UK
Originally distributed in the USA by
Ingram Book Company,
One Ingram Blvd., La Vergne, TN 37086, USA
2013 digital version by Andrews UK Limited
www.andrewsuk.com



Dedication
This book is dedicated to the millions of victims who have been denied a voice



Quote
‘Further, I took with me certain simple criteria with which to measure the life of the underworld. That which made for more life, for physical and spiritual health, was good; that which made for less life, which hurt, and dwarfed, and distorted life, was bad.’
- Jack London



Note
The names of individuals known to me personally have been changed in this book, and information that could point to their identities has been omitted. On the other hand, the reader will find that a very large part of the information used in this book has been drawn from the technical literature of psychiatry and mental health nursing.



Introduction: ‘Eyeless in Gaza’
In the 1980s, when I worked in a drug advice unit based in the community, it had become painfully obvious that the medical profession was capable of making mistakes on a huge scale. Millions of people across the developed world had been prescribed benzodiazepine tranquillisers like diazepam (Valium) and lorazepam, and led to believe that these drugs could be taken, even at high doses, for months or years, and then withdrawn from one day to the next without any problems. In fact, benzodiazepines are highly addictive, and a huge number of people worldwide (including myself in my twenties) found themselves addicted and in need of support for a prolonged period, usually several months, in order to free themselves from this dependency.
Books on pharmacology began to describe the consequences of the long-term use of tranquillisers quite unequivocally: ‘All of the minor tranquillisers are, nevertheless, addictive [...] They can all lead to compulsive use and physical dependence. Withdrawal can cause psychotic behaviour, convulsions and coma, and has even been fatal.’ [1] The prevailing wisdom among doctors, according to which only ‘neurotic’ or ‘unstable’ or ‘maladjusted’ individuals got themselves hooked on tranquillisers, quietly crept out by the back door, quite scared and unnerved by the outburst of anger among ordinary people and in the media and the mushrooming of self-help groups in which people shared experiences of their involuntary addiction and gave each other support.
A book called I’m Dancing as Fast as I Can , in which Barbara Gordon (a respected American television producer) told the story of her unwitting addiction to diazepam and the terrifying symptoms of abruptly giving it up, was eagerly read by many middle-aged ladies who had been prescribed benzodiazepines, and then patronised and misinformed for decades. [2]
I was sent on a number of training courses as part of my work in the drug advice unit, and found myself - I think the year was 1985 - among an endearingly diverse group of people, very typical of the eighties, at a conference centre just outside a village in the countryside of south-western England. Black Born-Again Christians, militant Marxists from African and Asian families, serious middle-class members of the Socialist Workers Party, genteel English ladies, misfits like myself, lesbian feminists and heterosexual feminists, and an ex-navvy from Belfast who had turned to social work, all of us involved in community work projects, came together for training on a course called ‘Coping with the Mentally Ill’, paid for by the organisations for which we worked.
We were asked a question by one of the tutors of the course, a psychiatric social worker, during one of the sessions: ‘Well, what kind of treatment for mental illness do you find acceptable and what treatment do you find unacceptable?’ A thoughtful, if awkward, silence followed.
‘I think that any treatment that threatens the integrity of the individual is unacceptable’, I suggested, noticing a moment later that the warmest approval for my words came from the lesbian feminists. The discussion went on for a long time until the same tutor made a remark that silenced us again.
‘In the late 1940s and 1950s, psychiatric hospitals were handing out lobotomies as readily as general hospitals were doing tonsillectomies.’
I had, of course, done my best to study mental illness and psychiatric practice since working for the drug advice unit, dealing, as I did, almost exclusively with people who had problems with drugs prescribed for anxiety disorders and depression. I knew something about the brain operation known as a lobotomy and its history and development, as well as its widespread use in the past. I had visited some of those who came to us for advice when they were admitted to psychiatric hospitals, and there I had noticed middle-aged or elderly men - who tend to suffer from baldness - with quite striking scars at the top of the forehead, twin indentations on either side, evenly spaced. However, on that day on a training course, I began to wonder how much I did know.
The terms lobotomy, frontal lobotomy, pre-frontal lobotomy, leucotomy - occasionally spelt ‘leukotomy’ - do not have precisely the same meaning, as we shall see later, but in practice they are used fairly interchangeably to refer to an irreversible surgical operation on the brain that profoundly affects personality. I shall try to be clear about the subject of this book from the very beginning, and in doing so I must now quote some very basic definitions. In 1985, I had already encountered this description of lobotomy by Peter Wingate in the 1976 edition of The Penguin Medical Encyclopedia :
A surgical operation devised in 1935 by Egas Moniz (1874-1955), a Portuguese neurosurgeon, for the relief of certain severe and progressive mental disturbances. The nerve cells of the prefrontal lobes at the very front of the brain are disconnected from the rest of the brain by cutting the underlying fibres. [...] Since brain tissue cannot heal, the operation is irrevocable. People who have had it have altered personalities: they tend to be irresponsible. But most of us would rather be carefree than suicidal. [3]
This author, Peter Wingate, qualified as a doctor and practised for many years in colonial Africa, and we can, perhaps, put his positive attitude to lobotomy into perspective by looking at his remarks on another subject in the same encyclopedia. Under the heading ‘homosexuality’, we find:
Attempts to treat homosexuality often fail. Unless the subject strongly wishes to change, they are bound to fail [...] homosexuality is a handicap, and many of those affected never really come to terms with it. With young subjects (say, within 10 or 12 years of puberty) there is at least some chance that behaviour therapy may succeed [...] Some German surgeons have performed minor operations on the brain to suppress certain reflex centres thought to govern homosexual behaviour, again in the hope of keeping persistent offenders out of prison. They claim that some of their patients are not only cured of their criminal tendencies but have become heterosexual. For the present, this cannot be regarded as more than an interesting experiment.
Interesting, indeed! I would suggest that the most interesting aspect of this doctor’s comments is not the way in which readers in the first decades of the twenty-first century might view them, but rather the fact that they could appear in a standard medical text as late as 1976. The way in which Dr Wingate effortlessly conflates homosexuality, paedophilia, and rape in the somewhat abridged passage quoted above is even more interesting (a ‘persistent offender’ would only be in prison for committing one of these crimes, not simply because of his sexual preferences).
The history of lobotomy as a medical procedure - but most of all as a social phenomenon - reveals, I believe, many, many more examples of individuals being defined as ‘sick’ or ‘in need of treatment’ simply because society did not like their choice of bed partners, or because society simply found their gender (the female gender without exception in this context) threatening in itself, or because they were regarded as troublemakers, or as undesirable members of the community who should be controlled.
Twelve years after that sunlit Gloucestershire morning in summer, I stood in Auschwitz, in which a very negative view of homosexuality had also prevailed, and in which another ‘German surgeon’, Dr Joseph Mengele, had also performed ‘interesting experiments’. I had gone to Auschwitz partly because of my lifelong interest in the work of the scientist and philosopher Dr Jacob Bronowski (1908-1974), who had lost many members of his family in the death camp. It is Bronowski who provides the second very basic definition of lobotomy:
We do not know exactly what the frontal lobes may do. We do not know anything very exactly [...] They make behaviour into patterns. They take the past and pattern it so that it is usable for the future. They organise behaviour. If you do an operation, as people foolishly did, twenty or thirty years ago, in which you cut off the frontal lobes from the rest of the brain, you get an extremely happy animal that you still call a man, but which is quite incapable of making any future-directed decision. [4]
Bronowski g