Segment 1 — The Cold Open

On a November morning in 1935, António Egas Moniz watched as a surgeon drilled two small holes into the skull of a sixty-three-year-old woman at Lisbon’s Santa Marta Hospital and injected alcohol into the white matter of her frontal lobes. Moniz had designed the operation to sever connections he believed were sustaining her severe anxiety and paranoia. Within days the patient appeared calmer, yet she also showed reduced spontaneity and emotional range that never fully returned. That single procedure launched a medical intervention whose reach would far exceed the problem it set out to solve.

Segment 2 — The Good Intention

Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist already known for developing cerebral angiography, turned to psychosurgery because existing treatments for psychosis offered little relief. Hospitals overflowed with patients whose agitation or delusions made daily life impossible, and the only widely available options—prolonged sedation, insulin coma, or hydrotherapy—produced inconsistent results. Drawing on earlier animal experiments and clinical reports of personality change after frontal-lobe injuries, Moniz hypothesized that severing certain fiber tracts could interrupt the fixed patterns of thought seen in mental illness. He viewed the approach as a precise, localized intervention rather than a wholesale destruction of brain tissue. In an era before antipsychotic medication, the possibility of returning even a fraction of institutionalized patients to functional life appeared both humane and urgently needed.

Segment 3 — The Implementation

Moniz published his first series of twenty patients in 1936, reporting improvement in fourteen cases with relatively few immediate deaths. The work spread quickly through European and American journals. Walter Freeman, a neurologist at George Washington University, adapted the technique into a simpler “transorbital” method that required no operating theater; an orbitoclast inserted above the eye could be performed in minutes under local anesthesia. By 1941 Freeman and neurosurgeon James Watts had performed hundreds of procedures across the United States. State hospitals adopted the operation enthusiastically because it reduced overcrowding and disruptive behavior on wards. Professional meetings featured before-and-after photographs showing calmer patients, and some families publicly thanked physicians for restoring a measure of peace to households exhausted by chronic illness.

Segment 4 — The Unintended Consequences

The same indiscriminate cutting that reduced agitation also erased initiative, foresight, and in many cases the ability to live independently. Follow-up studies from the late 1940s documented patients who could no longer hold jobs, manage households, or sustain meaningful conversation. Women received a disproportionate share of operations; asylum records from several states show ratios exceeding two-to-one, partly because female patients were more likely to be labeled “difficult” when they refused domestic routines. Estimates compiled by the American Medical Association suggest roughly 50,000 lobotomies performed in the United States between 1936 and 1956. A subset of cases ended in death from hemorrhage or infection; many more produced epilepsy, incontinence, or profound apathy. Because the procedure was irreversible and performed without controlled trials, each operation compounded uncertainty about long-term outcomes. Families often discovered only afterward that reduced symptoms had come at the cost of an altered person whose needs simply shifted from psychiatric to custodial care.

Segment 5 — The Aftermath

The introduction of chlorpromazine in 1954 provided a reversible pharmacological alternative and sharply reduced the number of new lobotomies within three years. Freeman continued performing the transorbital variant until 1967, but most hospitals quietly withdrew support. In 1962 the World Health Organization issued guidance discouraging psychosurgery except under strict research protocols. The Nobel Foundation has never revoked Moniz’s prize, citing the absence of any mechanism for rescission at the time of the award. Today the procedure survives only in highly refined, image-guided forms used for a narrow set of treatment-resistant conditions, accompanied by ethics review boards that did not exist in the 1940s.

Segment 6 — The Lesson

Interventions that alter complex systems without detailed causal maps tend to produce effects that cannot be confined to the intended target. When rapid relief from visible suffering is the dominant metric, slower or invisible harms receive less scrutiny until they accumulate at scale. Modern equivalents appear whenever new technologies—whether pharmacological, surgical, or algorithmic—promise to simplify intractable human problems; the same pressure to act quickly can outrun the slower work of measuring secondary consequences. What safeguards would we want in place before similar irreversible steps are taken today?

💬 Reply to this email — Patrick reads every one.

Share: X · LinkedIn · WhatsApp

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here — it's free.