>>18493203
Sometimes it did, most times it did not.
But you still stay retarded.

>>18493203
If it didn't work it wouldn't have been done on a mass scale. It was a very primitive version of an anti-psychotic, it worked well enough for its time. I hate when people look back on a point in time in which we did the best we could to help those suffering from mental illness and try to portray the doctors of the era as "evil".

>>18493233
To add to this: Psychiatrists were hopeful for any sort of treatment, literally any. It must have been miserable for them to have all these patients yet they cannot offer them anything. They came up with all sorts of insane things to try to treat them, the treatments before lobotomy were quite crazy and outlandish, they were desperate for a cure. Then came lobotomy... It seemed like a miracle and psychiatrists could finally offer some relief. I hate how history now views them as bad people.

>>18493203
If the only "cure" turns you into a retarded vegetable, then they should just kill you instead. That would be more humane.

>>18493233
People also did blood letting on a mass scale. And all of that shit related to humors that was based on hogwash. Doctors do retarded shit that doesn't work all the time. In part it's placebo and in part it's wishful thinking.

Stop making people retarded.

>>18493252
If it was done on such a mass scale, it was most likely more than just hogwash. Modern perceptions of bloodletting will be outright negative but there have may have been something that it was providing that we are not aware of in modern times. It is sort of like circumcision, which spread on a mass scale as it prevented phimosis as well as many infections. Regular bloodletting may have done something that made it popular, either way, without it they would have died any way, it was the only thing they had. There are benefits to regular blood donations, such as reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, it can apparently also help manage weight as the body burns calories to replenish blood.

ITT: Amateur Historians pretend they know jack shit about medical science.

>>18493237
>>18493233
It was always known causing literal brain damage didn't magically make someone a functional member of society. They saw they were making aggressive but cognizant people into docile non-cognizant people, at no point was it thought that this was in any way beneficial to the person who actually had the surgery.
The reason it was done was because the alternative was putting them in Asylums the state didn't want to have to pay for.
>>18493252
>>18493272
Blood letting is not and has never been hogwash. It's still used in modern medical practice for conditions such as hemochromatosis.

>>18493295
I said humors were hogwash. The way bloodletting was used historically was nonsense too though.

>>18493297
>I said humors were hogwash.
Humors were based on a very primitive understanding of air-born disease transmission. A perfectly logical conclusion in the era before germ theory.

For true bullshit you have to go to China where they thought rhino horn made their dicks hard.

>>18493203
Yeah, it worked on psychotic people who were a danger to themselves and others and would never get better even after numerous other treatments were tried.

Then the started doing it to everyone for everything, turning people with say mild depression into zombies for the rest of their life.

Why is it in history the "humane" option is often substantially worse than the "cruel" option?
>euthanasia
ew no that's evil
>letting someone suffer their entire multi-decade life, incontinent, with no quality of life
ah yes just as god intended
>capital punishment
wtf noooo you can't just take a liferino, he only raped and brutally murdered 20 people
>letting someone rot in a jail cell for decades of their life
we are the epitome of civilization

>>18493302
"Humors" is the belief that human health (and often personality) is determined by the balance of your four humors (blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm).

I think you're describing miasma.

>>18493310
Oh, yeah, nevermind, that was hogwash.

>>18493295
> They saw they were making aggressive but cognizant people into docile non-cognizant people
How does that differ from anti-psychotics? They are called chemical lobotomies for good reason. You are deliberately underplaying the severity of the mental illness these individuals suffered from. Untreated schizophrenia is far from "cognizant", with lobotomy they could at least become members of society albeit in a zombie-fied state, not all too different from how anti-psychotics make you feel. Only aspect of anti-psychotics that makes them better is that they are reversible. There are noted positive cases of lobotomy that had they not received the treatment would have most likely never saw relief from their symptoms. It worked enough times that I would consider it a valid treatment albeit a primitive one.

>>18493324
>How does that differ from anti-psychotics?
They don't effect intellectual capacity in any way. Lobotomy made previously intelligent people into retards.
>You are deliberately underplaying the severity of the mental illness these individuals suffered from. Untreated schizophrenia is far from "cognizant"
Bull fucking shit it was only used on people with severe mental afflictions like schizophrenia.
For example, look at what happened with Rosemary Kennedy, she didn't even have a mental illness, she was just a little retarded. They "treated" her with a lobotomy and the result was that she was unable to speak, incontinent, and basically only able to live due to round the clock care.
This was but one famous example, there are thousands more like it.

>>18493324
>Only aspect of anti-psychotics that makes them better is that they are reversible
Who's going to tell him

>>18493233
people back then knew this shit was fucked you stupid asshole. An entire auditorium of doctors exploded in an uproar once they realize that the guy pushing lobotomies was doing them to kids as young as 10 years old. If you don’t think that’s evil then you’re a soulless ghoul that needs to crawl back into whatever grave you escaped from

>>18493354
>people back then knew this shit was fucked you stupid asshole
Alright maybe I'm pushing it too far trying to defend lobotomy. Turning people into docile and obedient zombies against their will is fucked up. I still think its use on severe cases, which was how it was used initially, was doing more benefit than harm for its time. The way it was applied on a mass scale wasn't tough. Still, no one says anything about the anti-psychotics which came after. Their usage and intent was the same, to turn patients docile within psychiatric facilities, yet they are viewed as "miracle treatments". Is that only because of the money behind anti-psychotics that led us to perceive them that way, whereas there was not the same funding behind lobotomy? You can frame almost all psychiatric treatment through the same lens as lobotomy. Giving SSRIs to 10 year olds is somehow better than severing their frontal lobe? It all comes down to whipping people whom society is bothered by.

>>18493373
Also, no one is pointing out the fact that psychiatric treatment never really shifted away from lobotomy. We view it as "the past" but it clearly set the precedent for what psychiatric treatment is: The management of individuals which are bothersome. That never changed, we used to lobotomize them, now we shove 20 pills down their throats. I feel like Psychiatry is only willing to throw Lobotomy under the bus to save its image.

>>18493391
>>18493373
I mean, what do you suppose the alternative is? These people are always going to exist, in history there has never been a sound solution to them because there isn't one.
In the early modern period and before they burned them as witches afflicted by demonic possession.
In the Victorian era they locked them in asylums and charged admission.
The Nazis straight up mass killed them all.
The West lobotomized them, stuck them back in asylums, and now either highly medicate them or leave them to roam the streets as homeless and then die of hypothermia/drug overdose.

There's essentially no way to habilitate these people.

>>18493403
Killing them is fine, but people are making moral arguments about lobotomy so I'm arguing along those lines. I'd be fine with killing the insane tough, lobotomizing them is probably more humane however.

>>18493373
You are a vile creature.

>>18493412
That's real nice, anon, now if you wouldn't mind stepping in this chamber.

>>18493310
>human health (and often personality) is determined by the balance of your four humors (blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm).

It's true.
All those fluids are vital, and if they get out of balance you have associated health effects.

Phlegm, for example, is largely what forms your stomach lining which protects you from its acid.

It's just that, as understanding advanced that explanation was revealed to be inadequate.
So it's not exactly wrong, just over used and simplistic.

>>18493303
That’s pretty much it. It’s an horrible procedure, but I still can see the rationale why it could be seen as a net positive for people who were so utterly insane that that it was either restraints or padded cell or lobotomy, as no better treaments existed. But the way how far and wide the practice spread is fucking nauseating and there are no excuses for that.

Worked the same way making a person partially dumb. You're damaging brain tissue with the hope you're removing the worst most overactive disturbances. It obviously worked to some extent or it wouldn't be reoccurring measured. But to act like this primitive nonsense wasn't brutal and disastrous on many occasions is ridiculous

>>18493754
I think it's funny the inventor of the transorbital lobotomy got so zealous about Lobotomies he traveled around in a truck and started offering them for free.
He even lobotomized a four year old.

>>18493203
>worked
so does hitting her over the head with a battleaxe.

>>18493308
You having another schizo episode and imaging arguments noone has made?

>>18493203
It worked in the sense that the previous condition was terminated, but it was still comparatively inhumane, and the resolution was often making the person even more crippled
A lot of the issues with lobotomy also came from the fact that so many were doing it, even unlicensed doctors, and often not like a proper surgery at the peak of its popularity

>>18493373
These are also pretty bad but yes they are better on average
We need drug liberalization to research more suitable pharmaceuticals

>>18493203
You're actually a retard like ACTUALLY
What's even the point anymore? Being a heckin' epick contrarian just for the sake of it?