Talk:António Egas Moniz

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssaha17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Geeze a lobotomy sounds horrible. I wouldn't want a lobotomy that's for sure. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2013 (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)

Uh oh, now I'm worried. My recollection is that Valenstein said "not lobotomized" so maybe my memory's out of whack. But here's my overall evaluation (working from memory of readings over the years) is this: of the sources that saying anything more than "a pt", they either say, "a lobotomized pt" or they very specifically say, "a schizophrenic/psychotic pt who was angry about the dosages EM had prescribed/didn't think EM wanted to cure him" or fairly specific stuff like that. The specificity of the latter set, which never mention lobotomy, leads me to bet (if I were betting) that they are the accurate ones.

I'm sure we'll figure this out one day, but what to do in the meantime? If you're sure Valenstein says "lobotomized" (and we know that Finger says the opposite), I think we need (for now) to say, "Sources conflict as to whether this pt was etc etc" and cite both. You're sure about Valenstein?

If you're not sure about V yet, then maybe in the very short term we should just say "a pt" -- nothing more. We certainly can't say "sources conflict" with Finger + some English professor -- that's WP:UNDUE.

EEng (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain about Valenstein's (1973) publication, the ominously titled Brain control – not a bad book for its time and there's a little bit in it on Phineas Gage (which I didn't read). Most text that cite a source for the claim seem to lead back to this publication. It appears on page p. 54:

The total number of cases operated on under the supervision of Moniz was only about 100 since he was in favour of waiting for long-term results before proceeding on a large scale and also because he was made a hemiplegic as a result of an assault by a lobotomized patient, which left him with a bullet in his spine. Moniz retired in 1944 ...

Valenstein, Elliot S. (1973). Brain Control: A Critical Examination of Brain Stimulation and Psychosurgery. New York, London, Sydney & Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. p. 54. ISBN 0471897841. {{cite book}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |first= at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |last= at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Now I'll need to check this but I think one of the sources that insisted that Moniz was not shot by a lobotomised patient cited Valenstein's 1986 book, Great and Desperate Cures. So perhaps Valenstein corrected himself; in any case, it would be very odd to make that kind of specific claim (that he was not shot by a lobotomised patient) without substantial proof. Leave it a little while and I'll track it down. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I was thinking of Great and Desperate Cures, 1986. Can you see what V has to say there? I'm 1000s of miles from an academic library. EEng (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

EEng, you're going to get arrested for puns like that! Hopefully I'll have time to have a look tomorrow. I'll post back here as soon as I know. Really though we should get a Portuguese language source. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoble Nobel?

This continues the discussion found above in the section Edit War

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)

Yes, actually, pls email if you can. Keep up the good work, but don't burn yourself out!

EEng (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC) PS: I don't think you knew User:Garrondo, who has just popped up again after suddenly and mysteriously disappearing abt 2 yrs ago. He's a great contributor (though we did have some stylistic disagreements over Phineas Gage). I'm not sure what his story is exactly, but he's in Spain, which of course isn't Portugal but maybe he can help with obscure sources on Monix, or knows someone who can. Why don't you introduce yourself?

Please Show Reliable Sources

I aknowledge all the scientific controversy regarding Egas Moniz Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine but we need strong RS, preferebly from scientists, about the question. The source provided was simply a news from an english newspaper with an unacceptable language, showing a total bias and unconvincing claims about Egas Moniz[1]. First of all it would be impossible de-Nobelize Egas Moniz. Johannes Fibiger Nobel in 1926 was a clear mistake and it was never removed. Second, there are still those who claim that Egas Moniz Nobel was deserved. That source isn't reliable and it uses a language like this: "What happens when a Nobel prize winner is subsequently exposed as a fraud? Nothing, apparently" and "In one egregious case, the committee did err. And, if the campaign to de-Nobel Egas Moniz succeeds, Portugal - having a lousy year, what with Euro 2004 and its forest fires - will lose one of its two laureates (the other, novelist Jose Saramago, seems safe enough)." I don't think the journalist has the necessary scientific background to make such claims and the second quote totally eliminates his credibility as a acceptable source with his assumptions.Mistico (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Guardian piece's language is strident, but all that matters is that it's reliable for the facts cited (i.e. that there have been calls for removal, and that the Foundation has declined), and it is. However, as I look at this passage again I think it's not appropriate. If anything stuff like this belongs in the Lobotomy article, because unless it can say more about why Moniz didn't deserve the Prize (not just why lobotomy turned out to be a mistake). I've removed it. EEng (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the quote because I have found a source (Echoes of the Soul: A Rhetorical History of Lobotomy) that explains why they claim that Moniz didn't deserve the Prize. EternalFlare (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's an unpublished dissertation. [2] EEng (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Was he Jewish?

Was he Jewish? Does anybody know his religion? Catholic? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.56.115 (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Catholic.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would you even give a fuck about his religion? --217.245.203.15 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Like nationality, education, and birth/death dates, it establishes useful context for any biography. EEng (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You can be Jewish and Catholic... Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Date of injury

The year 1949 must be wrong, 1)he died in 1955, aged 81; source says he was shot when he was 65 years old - i.e. in 1939 2) see German wikipedia (shot by a patient on March 14th, 1939)91.56.255.80 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Finger (apparently the source you're referring to) says "he stayed fairly active in the field until 1949 when a paranoid patient (who did not have a leucotomy) shot him four times." [3] EEng (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on António Egas Moniz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404032552/http://museuegasmoniz.cm-estarreja.pt:80/ to http://museuegasmoniz.cm-estarreja.pt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on António Egas Moniz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323015412/http://facstaff.unca.edu/ddiefenb/lobotomy.html to http://facstaff.unca.edu/ddiefenb/lobotomy.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://museuegasmoniz.cm-estarreja.pt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)