Talk:António Egas Moniz

The

The article treats Moniz positively, even though his methods are still controversial. The idea that the U.S. version of the procedure is somehow more crude than Moniz's is without citation and probably incorrect. Whoever contributed this text likely thinks positively of Moniz--what we need is a NPOV discussion of the controversy of his procedures. 65.96.175.245 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I flagged those statements for citation. That Freeman resorted to lobotomy with excessive zeal is without question, but to say he used it indiscriminately is, I think, an overstatement. If you read his notes it's obvious he did at least have some criteria in selecting patients for the procedure. There is also way too much conflicting information about Moniz' death, particularly whether or not a former patient was involved in it. IMO this article would benefit from a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.132.137 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Egas Moniz was a *scientist*. His foremost contribution to medicine was the development of cerebral angiography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_angiography). It's one thing to have a rightful axe to grind against barbaric surgical practices, but quite another to smear a person's reputation by equating that person with the practice. I guess Egas Moniz is an interesting target, since he wasn't an american, not even a northern european! How could the 'US version' of his procedure possibly be more crude, really? That must be 'probably incorrect'! A hint: Egas Moniz didn't work with ice-picks. And he reserved it only for very specific and limited cases with no alternatives (http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n02/historia/lobotomy.htm). Go read on the history of the procedure(s). As for his death, he died aged 81. It's hardly surprising that he had been attacked by a patient more than a decade before - he spent his life among patients, some of whom violent, trying to find solutions for their problems. For many of which he did. His devotion was to people who suffered, Portugal wasn't a country where physicians rose to stardom and wealth by performing surgeries for showbiz. 85.243.91.24 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"I guess Egas Moniz is an interesting target, since he wasn't an american, not even a northern european! How could the 'US version' of his procedure possibly be more crude, really? That must be 'probably incorrect'! A hint: Egas Moniz didn't work with ice-picks."

Well Freeman didn't squirt alcohol directly into healthy brain tissue either, so I guess it's a draw as to which of them used the more crude procedure. The whole comment about the "US version" being more crude is for one thing non-factual as there is no objective basis for such an assertion, but really that is secondary as it seems evident that the true purpose of the comment was a sort of couched anti-Americanism -- meant to convey an image of the meticulous, responsible European scientist (Moniz) vs. a loud, hasty American braggart (Freeman). Encyclopedia articles are meant to convey verifiable facts, not to serve as a springboard for advocacy. The article should portray Moniz in neither a positive nor negative light. SquareWave (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The radical difference that Freeman introduced was in making it an "office procedure" rather than one requiring a operating theatre. This made the dissemination of the practice much easier. Freekra (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

False reason for Nobel Prize

he developed cerebral angiography, the technique of using x-rays to visualize arteries and veins that are transiently opacified with the injection of a high density agent. This procedure would allow physicians to map blood vessels in and around the brain, permitting the diagnosis of several kinds of neurological disorders, such as tumors and arteriovenous malformations. The method is widely used today for the diagnosis and treatment of vascular diseases in the brain. Egas-Moniz was awarded the Oslo Prize for this discovery.

This is false as can be verified from the [nobel foundation site]: "for his discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses". Therefore I removed the last false sentence.

He was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work on cerebral angiography in 1927. But both times he failed to achieve the award. I haven't checked recently, but I believe the 1949 award, whilst primarily given for his development of the leucotomy procedure, does reference this earlier work? Freekra (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have actually removed the "Oslo Prize" claim so I did it myself. The Nobel official site's statement that the prize was for leucotomy, and not mentioning angiography, speaks for itself absent someone offering hard evidence that the Nobel was for angiography as well. EEng (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moniz's Name

For the record Berrios provides the following information: "Antonio Caetano de Abreu Freire (the real name of Egas Moniz) ... It is unclear who gave him the name Egas Moniz, which belonged to an eleventh-century Portuguese hero of the resistance against the Moors. Some have claimed that it was his godfather at the christening, others that it was Moniz himself who adopted it as a pen name during his political struggle against the monarchy. ... was later to serve as Foreign Minister, Ambassador to Spain, and was the Portuguese signatory of the Treaty of Versailles. His political fortunes changed after 1920, and this led him back to his early interest in the neurosciences." Berrios, German E. (1997). The Origins of Psychosurgery: Shaw, Buckhardt and Moniz. 8 (1): p. 72, n. 17. It's hardly definitive, but might be of some use if you wish to include it. Freekra (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All this tells us is that there's complete confusion on when, why, and at whose suggestion Egas Moniz was added to the name. On top of that, a claim of descent from someone dead 800 years is going to need very, very strong support. I removed all such claims pending someone offering a coherent explanation with supporting evidence. EEng (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article expansion

Good work by MacDaid expanding the article, which has sorely needed it for a long time! However, I'm concerned there's now too much detail about lobotomy itself, which should mostly be at Lobotomy, for many reasons such as (1) it's a complicated subject which should is hard to present in a patchwork fasion; (2) it's a controversial subject, and discussion of how to present it should be centralized to the extent possible (i.e. in Lobotomy). I suggest that this article limit itself to a very brief description of lobotomy, referring the reader to Lobotomy for the full treatment (so to speak). There need be no technical description of the procedure at all here, and very limited mention of previous attempts at psychosurgery etc -- again, complicated topics which cannot be adequately treated in an article which is not, after all, about lobotomy and certainly not about psychosurgery or the history of treatment of mental illness.

The one area which, in my opinion, should be treated substantially here is Moniz ambition as a (possible) inspiration for his, um, daring innovation of lobotomy, his later thinking about what he had invented, perhaps late-life reminiscenses, and how he's been seen after his death, of course. These are just my suggestions, of course, and roughly stated to be sure.

Beyond that, there are certain details the article has taken on which seem just plain mistaken. Two examples: the elimination of mention of Moniz' writings outside of medicine (he wrote a book on card games, as I recall, and presumably about politics, for example); the substitution of Freeman for Moniz at the opening of the "Legacy" section; the elimination of mention of his name change. Since MacDaid is still actively working I'll sit back and wait. Let's all have a fun discussion here, shall we?

A final warning: there has been a continuing problem over the years with Moniz' relatives trying to block certain material and force in certain material. I suspect this recent activity will reawaken that, so be prepared.

EEng (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm starting a talk conversation since I get threatened by your friend and admin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

1) Regarding the shooting. Your source is Stanley Finger, professor of psychology. It's not someone qualified to know about a shooting, he's not a reporter. The_Guardian is a British national daily newspaper and is a qualified source for knowledge about a shooting in the (fairly) recent history. Like all newspapers, it has huge archives. Also, if you want to compare the two. The Guardian has a huge Wiki page. Stanley Finger is not even on Wikipedia.

2) Regarding the controversy paragraph. You have no reason to delete it. IMO, you are showing bias and deleting anything negative about lobotomy and Moniz in particular. The controversy is real and reported by the newspaper The_Guardian (same source). Here is another source about the controversy which states "Modern views of lobotomy have led to a call to pull Moniz’s Nobel prize." (MSN/The Associated Press): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8564777/ns/health-mental_health/t/shunned-years-lobotomies-back-spotlight

And a third source (Nobel Panel Urged to Rescind Prize for Lobotomies): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4794007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.42.63 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be opening a discussion because you were threatened with a block, but because every single editor you've come in contact with has been telling you to slow down pay attention to what others are saying. And I don't know Future Perfect from Adam -- stop saying everyone is biased, colluding, and so on -- it's very tiresome and makes people not want to deal with you. Now then...

• 1) When sources conflict, their comparative reliabilities must be weighed, in context. The Guardian is a reliable paper, but it (like every other paper) has different segments serving different purposes. The piece you keep citing is an opinion piece by a professor of English. Opinion pieces are not news pieces and express the views of the writer -- they do not carry the imprimatur of the paper, and certainly do not inherit the paper's reputation for fact reliability. They are, generally, reliable sources only for the opinion of the writer of the piece -- not for facts claimed, by the writer of the piece, in the piece. Against this, Stanley Finger is a respected historian of the brain sciences. The professor of English says the pt who shot Moniz had been lobotomized, and Finger say the opposite. Finger cites his sources, and the professor of English not only cites no sources, but says a lot of things implying he doesn't know what he's talking about ("hacking off the frontal lobes" and even, if we want to be downright pissy about it, apparently confusing chimps with monkeys). There's no question at all about how this is resolved.
• 2) It is probably appropriate to give a short mention of the calls for the Nobel to be rescinded (though the Nobel authorities actually have no machinery to do this, so it's a moot point in the end). But this can't be sourced to primary sources by people such as relatives making such calls (and that includes interviews -- interviews are almost always considered primary). We need a reliable, secondary source reporting on these calls, preferably reporting that there are multiple such calls over a sustained period, their significance, and so on. The NPR piece is a transcript of a radio interview with a relative of a lobotomy pt and an historian of medicine defending the motives (if not the judgment) behind lobotomy; the MSNBC piece reports two relatives' (one of them the same relative in the NPR piece) calls for recission and, again, the historian for balance. To put these together and say, "There have been calls for recission" is WP:SYNTH or, at the very least, WP:UNDUE. The MSNBC piece mentions an NEJM editorial -- this is an opinion piece as well but probably gives reliable factual background about recent controversy; if you can get its text (I don't have remote access from any of the IPs I'm at for a while) this might be usable.

In the meantime I wouldn't mind a sentence saying something might be added like, "Due to later re-evaluation of the wisdom of lobotomy in many or most cases, questions have been raised about whether the Prize should have been awarded" -- with a citation needed tag, however. Even that's not quite right but it might be a start, and I've added it -- well, something like it. What do you think?

BTW, there's no such word as lobotomee, for reasons which should be obvious.

EEng (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who shot E.M.?

Not being picky EEng but what is Finger's source for the statement that it wasn't a lobotomy patient? (I think the contention that the patient who shot him had been previously lobotomised, derived from Valenstein (1973), unlikely, but whatever). FiachraByrne (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoble Nobel?

This source Gross, Dominik (2011). "Egas Moniz (1874-1955) and the "invention" of modern psychosurgery: a historical and ethical reanalysis under special consideration of Portuguese original sources". Neurosurgical Focus. 30 (2): 8. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) briefly mentions the campaign to de-Nobel Moniz and criticism of the procedure dating from 1949. It's a good paper that mostly uses Portuguese language sources - doesn't discuss the shooting unfortunately. Incidentally, there was a stamp issued for Moniz in Portugal in the mid 1970s with a leucotome on it! FiachraByrne (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotta run this minute -- interrupted as usual. Will write re shooting about 5 hrs from now if I can. Neur Focus article sounds like it might be good -- also, can you get the NEJM editorial (see above)? 187.18.234.203EEng (editing logged out apparently -- I'm back but now not sure I can get to this tonight) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no hurry - take it slow. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were the IP editor there. Yes I can get the NEJM op-ed/book review piece. Gives a pretty standard narrative of lobotomy informed by Pressman and El-Hai. Mentions the campaign in one line. Then undertakes a ethical consideration of Freeman's career and lobotomy itself in the face of evidence that some patients at least were grateful and escaped institutionalisation due to lobotomisation. Indeed, most articles that touch on the de-nobling campaign use it as an opening for such an evaluation. You want me to email you a copy? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)