Friday, November 27, 2009

The new and unimproved lobotomy unveiled in NYTimes

The new and unimproved lobotomy unveiled in NYTimes



expert academic in the field says: "Because psychiatry is the religion of modern America, and as faith in psychiatry has eroded lately, our thought leaders are dredging up old psychiatric idols that might re-energize the faithful..."

a must read from: Alliance for Human Research Protection
NYTimes Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/health/research/27brain.html
________________________________________________

Psychosurgery Promoted by NYT: Here We Go, Again

Friday, 27 November 2009

"Only 3 patients were in remission without adverse effects at long-term follow-up." True to an ignoble tradition of lending its "authoritative" front page to promote psychiatry's most radical experimental approaches to dealing with patients disabled by mental illness, today's front and center article in The New York Times, "Surgery for Mental Ills Offers Both Hope and Risk," by Benedict Carey, sends an optimistic positive spin on psychiatry's current spade of experimental brain surgeries.

A large photograph--rather than compelling evidence--attempts to lend the story significance.

The article acknowledges that the new surgeries are not backed by new scientific evidence of their benefit to justify the serious risks involved:

"The great promise of neuroscience at the end of the last century was that it would revolutionize the treatment of psychiatric problems. But the first real application of advanced brain science is not novel at all. It is a precise, sophisticated version of an old and controversial approach: psychosurgery, in which doctors operate directly on the brain."

Indeed, Paul Root Wolpe, a medical ethicist at Emory University, acknowledges the high risk experimental procedures that patients are being put through:

“We have this idea — it’s almost a fetish — that progress is its own justification, that if something is promising, then how can we not rush to relieve suffering?”

But, Dr. Wolpe reminds readers, "It was not so long ago, he noted, that doctors considered the frontal lobotomy a major advance — only to learn that the operation left thousands of patients with irreversible brain damage. Many promising medical ideas have run aground, and that’s why we have to move very cautiously.”

Despite "large gaps" in the neurosurgeons' understanding of the brain circuits they are operating on, several surgeries are currently being promoted:
cingulotomy, capsulotomy, brain stimulation (DBS), and radiation (gamma knife surgery)
--all pose high risk for patients with little demonstrable evidence of success.

In cingulotomy, doctors drill into the skull and thread wires into an area of the brain called the anterior cingulate.
"There they pinpoint and destroy pinches of tissue that lie along a circuit in each hemisphere that connects deeper, emotional centers of the brain to areas of the frontal cortex, where conscious planning is centered."

"This circuit appears to be hyperactive in people with severe O.C.D., and imaging studies suggest that the surgery quiets that activity."
The evidence to justify the risks does not exist: neurosurgeons proceed on what "appears" and imaging studies that "suggest" but do not demonstrate.

In capsulotomy, "surgeons go deeper, into an area called the internal capsule, and burn out spots in a circuit also thought to be overactive."

Surgeons who perform DBS, sink wires into the brain but leave them in place. "A pacemaker-like device sends a current to the electrodes, apparently interfering with circuits thought to be hyperactive in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (and also those with severe depression). The current can be turned up, down or off, so deep brain stimulation is adjustable and, to some extent, reversible."

In the technique described in the Times article, called gamma knife surgery.
"Doctors place the patient in an M.R.I.-like machine that sends beams of radiation into the skull. The beams pass through the brain without causing damage, except at the point where they converge. There they burn out spots of brain tissue..."

Underscoring the danger these latest neurosurgical procedures pose, Dr. Darin D. Dougherty, director of the division of neurotherapeutics at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard, put it more bluntly.

" Given the history of failed techniques, like frontal lobotomy, if this effort somehow goes wrong, it’ll shut down this approach for another hundred years.”

The evidence, from a small long-term follow-up study, reported by the respected Swedish Karolinska Institute in the Archives of General Psychiatry, [1] found that 50% of 25 patients treated with any of the commonly used surgeries for OCD, showed that response rates did not differ significantly between surgical methods.

"Only 3 patients were in remission without adverse effects at long-term follow-up."

"One of the 9 patients undergoing radiosurgery (patient 20) developed a right-sided radiation necrosis with subsequent apathy, memory problems, and executive dysfunction. Another (patient 10) developed a brain edema that reached its peak size 1 year after surgery; the patient was hospitalized with symptoms of apathy, incontinence, and seizures. At long-term follow-up, urinary incontinence, apathy, and executive problems persisted. In both cases, complications may have been caused by too high a radiation dose. Another patient who underwent multiple thermocapsulotomies (patient 8) had persistent urinary incontinence at long-term follow-up. Symptoms of apathy and poor self-control for years afterward."

"A mean weight gain of 6 kg was reported in the first postoperative year. Ten patients were considered to have significant problems with executive functioning, apathy, or disinhibition. Six of these 10 patients had received high doses of radiation or had undergone multiple surgical procedures."

Conclusions: "Capsulotomy is effective in reducing OCD symptoms. There is a substantial risk of adverse effects, and the risk may vary between surgical methods. Our findings suggest that smaller lesions are safer and that high radiation doses and multiple procedures should be avoided."

The invariably positive claims made by proponents of neurosurgery are likely explained by the inherent bias of these stakeholders. As Dr. Christian Ruck, the lead author of the Swedish paper, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry correctly notes:

"An inherent problem in most research is that innovation is driven by groups that believe in their method, thus introducing bias that is almost impossible to avoid."

So why, did the New York Times once again, see fit to publicize admittedly high risk, radical surgical procedures that demonstrably cause at least half of the patients serious long-term debilitating adverse effects that undermine their quality of life? [2]

**The answer to that question comes to us from an expert academic in the field:

"Because psychiatry is the religion of modern America, and as faith in psychiatry has eroded lately, our thought leaders are dredging up old psychiatric idols that might re-energize the faithful..."
_____________________________________________

Who really needs God or Faith anymore: we have those Second to God Psychiatrist, Pharmaceutical drugs, and Modern Medicine to fill that void.


Philip Dawdy @ Furious Seasons psychosurgery_and_the_problem_of_severe_ocd
Wrote a post related to this NYTimes Article - You might find the conversation in the comment section worth reading on this topic.


No comments:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Terms and conditions on the use of the contents of the “Is Something Not Quite Right with Stan - A Mental Health Blog” site are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Stan does not represent or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of the information or content (collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from this website.

Stan encourages you to make your own health care and legal decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care and/ or legal professional. The information posted here should not be considered medical advice and is not intended to replace consultation with a qualified medical professional if they exist. I do not answer specific medical questions.

Third party information is gathered from sources that Stan believes to be reliable. However, in no event shall Stan, or any third parties mentioned on this site be liable for any damages resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the content whether or not Stan is advised of the possibility of such damages.

Stan reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the displayed materials.

You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any Materials shall be at your sole risk.

Disclaimer of Liability

The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this web site and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this web site, or shall the website writer or any commenter’s be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the web site and/or any other web sites which are linked to this site.

Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a visitor on any information obtained via the web site; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.

ALL CONTENT ON THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Stan MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENCY, OR RELIABILITY OF ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Disclaimer of Endorsement - Reference to any products, services, hypertext link to the third parties or other information by trade name, trademark, supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation by me. Nor is an endorsement by me is implied by such links. They are for convenience only, as an index in a public library.

Information Subject to Change - Any information on this web site may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, the information may change from time to time without any notice.

GENERAL INFORMATION - The information contained in this online site is presented and intended to provide a broad understanding and knowledge critical to psychiatric practices and humorous social interaction. The information should not be considered complete and should not be used in place of communication and consultation.

NO WARRANTIES “Is Something Not Quite Right With Stan - A Mental Health Blog” MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES THAT USE OF THE WEB SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ANY CONTENT YOU MAY OBTAIN FROM THE WEB SITE IS FREE OF VIRUSES.

This site is not a monologue of truth. It is a catalyst for public debate about medical conduct and for entertainment purposes. The reader is urged to confront officials to clarify issues mentioned herein. This site is designed strictly to provide information for critical, literary, academic, entertainment, and public usage. A qualified and trustworthy medical professional must be consulted regarding medical issues, treatments, diagnoses, etc.; if they exist in all actuality or truth.