This Friday’s version of The New York Times had a front-page article that described the well being of two men. The first man was older and found “himself completely unable to wash himself or brush his teeth”, while the second was a teenage who had “become so terrified of germs that he would regularly shower for seven hours”. These OCD patients both decided to undergo an experimental surgery that would, idealistically, allow them to overcome their disorder. This surgery requires that “four raisin-sized holes” would be “burned deep in their brains”. 24 months after the surgery, the first man insists that there was no change in his behavior as he “still doesn’t leave the house”. The second subject, however since the surgery, has been able to return to a “normal” life and is even able to attend college. This modern day lobotomy immediately evokes a comparison to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. He argument over this procedure lies within the risk. Some medical ethicists still believe the results are hugely unpredictable. The Times explains, “It was not so long ago…that doctors considered the frontal lobotomy a major advance- only to learn the operation left thousands of patients with irreversible brain damage”. So far this experimental surgery is exercise for only extreme untreatable cases of OCD (5- 15 percent of OCD patients qualify). I believe that we need to make the distinction between progress toward a solution and deeming this surgery a solution. Careful research should continue, while only using this treatment on very drastic cases. It is our nature to desire to help everyone in need immediately, but we are not fully aware of the repercussions. We must recognize this step in the right direct, but not deem it the end of our journey to help these people.
Thanks to: Surgery for Mental Ills Offers Hope and Risk by Benedict Carey The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with Maggie on this topic. This does seem to have hints of a modern day lobotomy and it appears that the holes that doctors drill into patients' heads are much more precise than the old process of just rearranging brains, but this process should only be used in extreme cases. There are times when the shift of problems to make a person more manageable is acceptable. If these people can't function in a normal society and they are willing to risk the chances of altering their personality and even having brain damage in order to be a functioning member of society then it is their choice based on the fact that research shows this has a high success rate and much lower problems than the old lobotomy. But I'd have to agree with Maggie in the identification that this is just a shift of problems, not a solution. Sometimes a latitudinal shift to make a person more manageable is acceptable in extreme cases only. This is not a permanent solution but it is necessary to perform it if you want to make sure that further research and progress can be made.
Post a Comment