Subscribe now

Read Along:

It is 1946. A woman lies on a table in Washington, D.C. Her name is Sallie Ellen Ionesco.

A doctor places two electrodes against her temples and sends a current through her brain until she goes under. No anesthesiologist. No surgeon. The current is the anesthesia.

Then he lifts her eyelid. He takes a thin metal instrument, something that looks like an ice pick, and he sets the point against the bone at the top of her eye socket. He picks up a mallet.

And he taps it through her skull.

He sweeps the instrument back and forth inside the front of her brain. The whole thing takes a few minutes. There is no incision to stitch, no scar to hide. Just two eyes that will bruise black over the next few days.

When it is over, he sends her home in a taxi.

This was not a crime. Not in 1946. This was medicine. It had a name, it had a Nobel Prize behind it, and it would be performed on tens of thousands of Americans before anyone in power decided to stop it.

This is the story of the lobotomy.

I want to be careful with this one. Because the easy version of this story is a monster story. One mad doctor with an ice pick and a god complex, roaming the country, doing damage. And that doctor exists. We are going to spend a lot of time with him today.

But that version lets everyone else off the hook. And the truth is worse than one madman. The truth is that the lobotomy was normal. It was respectable. It was written up in newspapers as a miracle. Hospitals welcomed it. Families asked for it. Fathers signed for it. A man won the highest prize in medicine for inventing it.

The horror here is not that one person did this. The horror is how many people said yes.

So here is the question I keep circling. How does mutilating a human brain become a treatment? Not in some distant century. In America. In the time of automobiles and movie theaters and the Kennedy family. Within living memory.

To answer that, we have to understand the world that wanted it. A world of overcrowded asylums and no good options, where doctors were desperate enough to try almost anything. We have to meet the man who turned brain surgery into a roadshow. We have to sit with the people it was done to, because they are the ones who paid for it, and most of them never agreed to pay. And we have to ask why it finally stopped, because the answer to that is not as comforting as you would hope.

Twenty thousand lobotomies in Britain. Around fifty thousand in the United States, most of them packed into just a few years at the start of the 1950s. Those are not numbers from the Dark Ages. Some of the people who lived through this are still alive.

Let’s start with the world that made it possible.

Picture a state mental hospital in America in the 1930s. Before the lobotomy. Before the pills.

It is overcrowded. Wards built for hundreds hold more than they were ever meant to. Many of the people inside will never leave. There is no medication that reliably touches psychosis, or severe depression, or the kind of agitation that exhausts everyone around it. The word people used for these places, later, was snakepit. Custodial institutions, full of human beings nobody knew how to help.

And the doctors in those buildings were not all villains. Hold onto that, because it matters. Many of them were reformers. They wanted to do something. They were surrounded by suffering they could not fix, and that is its own kind of pressure. So they experimented.

They tried inducing comas with insulin. Days of it, patients dropped into unconsciousness with insulin and then pulled back. They tried triggering convulsions on purpose, with a chemical called metrazol, seizures induced in a sick person because someone hoped the seizure would help. They tried electroshock. None of it worked the way they hoped. But that is not really the point. The point is what each of these did to the imagination of medicine.

Because each one chipped away at a line that used to feel solid. The line that says you do not do violent things to a sick person’s body and call it care. Every coma, every induced convulsion, every jolt of current moved that line a little. So that by the time someone proposed cutting into the brain itself, it did not sound insane. It sounded like the next step. The line had already moved. The lobotomy just walked through the space where it used to be.

The idea itself came from Europe.

In Portugal, in the mid 1930s, a neurologist named António Egas Moniz began cutting into the front of the brain. He called it leucotomy. The theory was that severe mental illness lived in the connections between the frontal lobes and the structures deeper inside, and if you severed those connections, you could sever the illness. Quiet the storm. The surgery itself was done by a neurosurgeon working with him, a man named Almeida Lima, the kind of name that gets lost in these stories while the famous one survives. Remember that. The hands that hold the instrument and the name that gets remembered are almost never the same.

And here is the detail I cannot get past. In 1949, Moniz won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for it.

Let me read you the official wording. This is from the Nobel record itself.

“The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1949 was divided equally between Walter Rudolf Hess and António Caetano de Abreu Freire Egas Moniz, for his discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses.”

The therapeutic value. That is the phrase. And the prize was never taken back. To this day, if you look up the 1949 Nobel laureates, Moniz is still on the list. The Nobel Foundation’s own biography page now admits, quietly, that the operation led to serious personality changes, and that its use collapsed once real medications arrived. But the prize stands.

And here is a small detail that I think tells you everything about how this spread. According to NPR’s account, the man who nominated Moniz for that Nobel Prize was the American we are about to spend the rest of this episode with. Walter Freeman. The evangelist nominated the inventor. The student put the teacher up for the highest honor in medicine, and the committee agreed, and the seal was set.

That is the legitimacy this procedure carried. Not a back-alley experiment. A Nobel, championed by its most enthusiastic believer.

Now. The idea crossed the Atlantic. And in America, it found the man it had been waiting for.

His name was Walter Jackson Freeman the Second. Born in Philadelphia in 1895. A neurologist and a neuropathologist, well trained, well connected, ambitious in a way that the people around him noticed early. One medical history describes his flair for showmanship, and his habit of clashing with authority, as things that showed up when he was still young.

Picture him for a second, because the picture matters. Round glasses. A goatee. A cane sometimes. A taste for showmanship in how he dressed and how he spoke. Years later, Howard Dully, who was a child when he met him, remembered Freeman as looking a little like a beatnik. Warm. Personable. The kind of man a child would not be afraid of, right up until the moment he should have been.

I want to be precise about something, because it is the key to everything that follows. Walter Freeman was not a surgeon. He was a neurologist. He studied the brain, he diagnosed disease, but he was not trained to cut into people. So in 1935 he brought in someone who was. A neurosurgeon named James Watts.

In September of 1936, the two of them performed the first prefrontal lobotomy in the United States, on a woman named Alice Hood Hammatt. She was the first. Before her, in America, this had never been done to a living person. Watts did the surgery. Freeman directed the idea. They drilled holes in the skull, over the frontal lobes, and used an instrument to cut cores of white matter out of the brain. Cores. They removed cores of the connecting tissue, the way you’d take a sample out of an apple.

It was real surgery, at least. Sterile field. Operating room. A surgeon’s hands. There was ritual to it, the recognizable ceremony of an operation, the things we do that say we understand the gravity of opening a human head. And for a few years, that is what the American lobotomy was. Slow. Bloody. Serious. Rare.

But Freeman wanted more. He wanted it faster. He wanted it everywhere. And a careful, sterile, skull-drilling operation that required a trained neurosurgeon was never going to be everywhere.

So he found another way in. Through the eye.

The technique was called transorbital lobotomy. Freeman performed it in the United States for the first time on January 17th, 1946. That was Sallie Ellen Ionesco, the woman from the very start of this episode. Electroshock to knock her out. An instrument through the top of the eye socket. Cuts in the frontal lobes. No drilling. No scar. Sent home in a cab.

Here is how NPR summed up why Freeman loved it.

“The transorbital lobotomy left no scars, apart from two black eyes. Took less than ten minutes. Could be performed outside of an operating room. And according to Freeman, produced better results.”

Read that again in your head. Less than ten minutes. Outside an operating room. No scar.

He had taken brain surgery and turned it into something you could do in an office, between appointments, without a surgeon in the room. And that is exactly what split him from James Watts. Watts was a surgeon. He believed brain surgery belonged in an operating theater, done by people trained to be there. When Freeman started driving an instrument through eye sockets in offices, Watts pulled away. The sources disagree on exactly when the partnership broke, some say 1947, some say 1950, but they agree on why. The surgeon looked at what his partner was doing and did not want his name on it.

Freeman did not slow down. He sped up.

He put the operation in the trunk of his car and he took it on the road. Over the years he traveled to fifty-five psychiatric hospitals. He crossed and re-crossed the United States eleven times. He performed the ice-pick lobotomy in twenty-three states.

Think about what that actually means. A man, alone, driving from state to state, hospital to hospital, with the tools of brain surgery in his luggage. Arriving like a salesman. Demonstrating his product on the patients the local doctors brought him. Then getting back in the car and driving to the next town. Twenty-three states. He was not hiding. He was touring.

You will hear this trip called the “lobotomobile.” It is a great word. I have to be honest with you about it, though, because Freeman’s biographer found no evidence that Freeman ever used that nickname himself. The road trip is real, fully documented. The cute name came later. I am telling you that because the real thing does not need to be exaggerated. A man drove across America performing brain operations through people’s eyes. That is enough.

StoryCorps called him, and I think this is exactly right, “equal parts physician and showman.” A “barnstorming crusader” for the procedure.

A crusader. That is the word for someone who believes. And Walter Freeman believed.

Let’s talk about the instrument. Because the instrument is where the legend and the truth get tangled, and the truth is stranger.

People say “ice pick lobotomy.” And they picture exactly that. A kitchen ice pick. The thing you’d use to break up a block of ice for a drink.

That picture is, partly, correct.

According to Freeman’s biographer Jack El-Hai, in the early days Freeman did use an actual household ice pick. A real one, from a drawer, stamped with the name of the company that made it. The Uline Ice Company. El-Hai’s best estimate is that Freeman used a kitchen ice pick on the first dozen, maybe two dozen, living patients. Before he moved to purpose-built tools.

Sit with that. The prototype for a psychiatric brain operation, performed on tens of thousands of people, was a tool he found in his own kitchen.

Later, the instruments were made properly. There is a set preserved at the Smithsonian, from around 1950, machined by a man named Henry Ator. Steel and stainless steel, in a leatherette case. They have a clinical name now. The transorbital leucotome. The orbitoclast.

But that is the arc of this whole story in one object. It starts as a thing from a kitchen drawer. And then it gets a case, and a maker, and a Latin name, and it becomes medicine.

And there is one more thing about the design that I want you to sit with. The reason Freeman preferred going in through the eye was, in part, that it left no scar on the head. Just the bruising. Two black eyes that would fade in a week or two. Think about what that means as a feature. The old operation left a mark, holes in the skull, a sign that something enormous had happened. The new one left almost nothing to see. You could send a person back out into the world and a stranger would never know that the front of their brain had been cut. The absence of evidence was the selling point.

So how did it actually go.

The patient is rendered unconscious by electroshock. No general anesthetic. The current is what puts them down. Freeman, by the accounts, did not wear gloves. Did not wear a mask. Was not careful about sterilizing his tools. One essay on the history notes exactly that. And Freeman himself, quoted later, was impatient with what he called, and I am quoting him, “all that germ crap.”

That is the man. Going into a human brain, bare-handed, calling sterility germ crap.

Let me give you a witness. Because I do not want this to stay abstract. A nurse named Helen Culmer assisted Freeman with a transorbital lobotomy in West Virginia, in 1954, in a room full of people who had come to watch. Here is what she remembered.

“He had an instrument. To me it looked like a nail, a great big nail. It had a sharp point, and he inserted this in the corner of the individual’s eye and banged it with a mallet.”

A nail. A great big nail. That is a nurse who was standing in the room. And she said the room was full. People had come to watch. This was not done behind a closed door, in private, with the shame that violence usually wants. It was done in front of an audience, because Freeman believed in it, and a man who believes wants witnesses.

And she remembered something else. She remembered losing a patient. The bleeding could not be stopped. Somebody went in through the eye, and somebody bled, and somebody in that watching room realized this person was not going to wake up. And then, presumably, the day went on.

Here is another witness. A doctor named Wolfhard Baumgartel, who watched Freeman work at a state hospital in Ohio. He said Freeman did between fifteen and twenty of these in a single day. And he could not understand the calm of it. His words.

“How can a man be relaxed just going blindly into a brain?”

Going blindly into a brain. Fifteen, twenty times a day. Relaxed.

There are accounts of Freeman working on both eyes at once. An instrument in each hand, both orbits at the same time, for the speed of it, for the show of it. I will tell you that this image is reported but not as nailed down as the rest, so I hold it a little loosely. But hold it at all and it tells you who he was. Even the rumors about Walter Freeman are about going faster.

And here is the thing nobody could honestly promise about any of it. What it would do to you. Whether you would come out better, or worse, or not come out as yourself at all. The neurologist and historian Elliot Valenstein summed up the real range of outcomes, and there is no version of this sentence that is not chilling.

“Some patients seemed to improve, some became vegetables, some appeared unchanged, and others died.”

That is the menu. Improve. Vegetable. Unchanged. Dead. Four outcomes, no way to know in advance which one you were buying, and people lined up. Or more often, were lined up by someone else.

Now I want to slow all the way down. Because we have been talking about a man and a method, and it is time to talk about the people this was done to. This is the part of the story that should be hard to hear. If it is easy, I have told it wrong.

Start with a name you know. Kennedy.

Rosemary Kennedy was the eldest daughter of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. Born in 1918. The National Park Service describes her as a child who was affectionate, eager to please, living in a time that offered almost nothing for people with intellectual disabilities. As she got older, the family records say she grew harder to manage. Her sister Eunice later wrote that Rosemary seemed to be going backward, becoming, in her words, increasingly irritable and difficult.

In November of 1941, her father arranged a lobotomy. Rosemary was twenty-three.

Here is the National Park Service, plainly.

“In November 1941, Mr. Kennedy arranged to have a lobotomy performed on Rosemary. It was immediately clear that the operation had drastically failed.”

Immediately clear. The JFK Library puts it this way. The procedure left her permanently incapacitated and unable to care for herself. She lost much of her ability to walk and to speak. Her personality was gone, altered forever. She was sent to an institution in Wisconsin, and she lived there for the rest of her life. She died in 2005, at eighty-six.

She was a young woman who had been presented at court in London. And a decision made by the men in her family, in a single operation, erased the person she was and replaced her with someone who needed lifelong care. The family did not talk about where she had gone for years.

That is what this could do to a daughter of the most powerful family in America. Now think about what it could do to people with no power at all.

Howard Dully was twelve years old.

On December 16th, 1960, Walter Freeman performed a transorbital lobotomy on him. Twelve. One of the youngest people ever to receive the ice-pick operation.

And the reason was not psychosis. The reason was a stepmother who found him difficult. When Dully grew up, he went looking for his own records, and he found how Freeman had described him. A boy who daydreamed. Who was defiant. Who stole sweets. Who fought with his brother. Who rode his bicycle. Normal. The records also noted, and this is Freeman’s clinical note about a child, a “vicious expression.”

The hospital report describes the operation in flat language. A sharp instrument thrust through the orbital roof on both sides, and moved to sever the pathways in the frontal lobe. That is a twelve-year-old.

Dully spent years trying to understand what had been done to him. He even became the first patient to obtain a photograph of his own lobotomy. He had to look at the picture. When he reflected on the adults who allowed it, on a stepmother who took him to a doctor she had just met, he said this.

“You meet a guy once and you’re going to let him drive spikes in your son’s head?”

He also said something I think about a lot. About why he had to dig all this up, why he could not let it lie.

“This is my odyssey. Everyone has one thing they have to do before they die, and this is mine.”

He survived. He grew up, he lived, he told his story. Many did not get even that.

There was Patricia Moen, lobotomized by Freeman in 1962. Her husband Glen signed the release. In their interviews afterward, Patricia remembered Freeman warning her that she could come out of it a vegetable, or dead. And Glen, being honest in a way that is almost unbearable, admitted that one of the things he had been afraid of losing was his cook.

That is the size of it. Personality, marriage, survival, and who would make dinner, all weighed on the same scale, before someone put an instrument through her eye.

And I have to tell you who, in general, ended up on that table. Because there is a pattern, and the pattern is not an accident. The people lobotomized were overwhelmingly the people whose voices were already weakest. Institutionalized patients. Women. Children. The depressed. The disabled. The inconvenient. People described, in the records, as difficult. The stated purpose was always to relieve symptoms. But look at the effect, again and again, and the effect was to make a person quieter. More manageable. Easier for everyone who was not on the table.

I want to be careful here, because this is where myth can outrun evidence. The claim that women were disproportionately targeted is supported by the named cases and by scholars, though the exact numbers need careful sourcing. And there is a darker claim, that lobotomy was used against gay people, which I have heard repeated. In the records I trust for this episode, I could not confirm a clear American case of that. So I am going to leave it as an open question rather than a fact. The verified truth is grim enough without me reaching past it.

This is the part where I expected to find a reckoning. I did not find one. The world did not just allow the lobotomy to happen. The world applauded.

The press loved the lobotomy. The New York Times, back in 1937, called the operation a kind of “surgery of the soul.” The BBC, looking back, found that it was hailed as a miracle cure, and described, by doctors and the media both, as something “easier than curing a toothache.”

Easier than curing a toothache. That is how they sold cutting into a brain.

And I want to resist the easy version again here, because it would be satisfying to say everyone who pushed this was a cynic or a fraud. They were not. The BBC, looking back at the whole era, landed on something more uncomfortable. Their words. “The truth is more complex. Lobotomists were often progressive reformers, driven by a desire to improve the lives of their patients.” Progressive reformers. People who thought of themselves, genuinely, as the good ones. As the modernizers rescuing patients from a lifetime in a locked ward. That is not a comfort. That is the warning. Because the people doing the harm did not feel like they were doing harm. They felt like they were doing good, and the culture around them agreed.

And you can see why it worked, if you put yourself in that overcrowded hospital. There was also money in it, quietly. It cost a state a small fortune to warehouse a person for life. An operation that might send that person home, or at least make them quiet enough to manage with fewer staff, was not only a medical proposition. It was an economic one. Nobody likes to say that part out loud. Here is StoryCorps on the appetite for it.

“In the era before psychiatric drugs, when state institutions were overflowing with mentally ill patients often living in snakepit conditions, hospitals, families, and the press were eager to embrace miracle cures like the ice-pick lobotomy.”

Hospitals, families, and the press. A coalition. Everyone wanted the miracle, so everyone agreed not to look too hard at the blade.

Freeman understood this better than anyone. He kept photographs. He gave demonstrations. He turned operations into events, into proof. And the BBC notes something that has stayed with me. He kept boxes of thank-you notes. Christmas cards. From grateful families.

That is the hardest part of complicity. It is not that everyone was lied to. It is that some of them really were grateful, and the gratitude and the harm sat in the same box, in the same drawer, at the same time.

Here is a fact that I think should be more famous than it is.

The Soviet Union banned the lobotomy in 1950.

Nineteen fifty. A government not known for its tenderness toward the individual looked at this procedure and outlawed it. And meanwhile, in the United States, the operation was just hitting its peak. In the summer of 1952, Walter Freeman performed two hundred and twenty-eight transorbital lobotomies in two weeks, in West Virginia. Two weeks.

So when we tell ourselves that conscience won, that medicine looked at this and recoiled, we should be honest. The Soviets banned it years before America stopped. And America did not really stop because of a reckoning.

America stopped because of a pill.

In 1954, a drug called chlorpromazine, sold as Thorazine, arrived. For the first time, there was a way to quiet a psychotic patient that did not require cutting. Something you could give to thousands of people, cheaply, that did not destroy the front of the brain. And the same institutions that had reached for the ice pick simply reached for the bottle instead.

That is what I mean when I say the ending is not comforting. The lobotomy did not lose a moral argument. It lost a competition. A better technology came along for managing people, and the blade was put down because the blade was no longer the most efficient tool. The appetite, the appetite to make difficult people quiet, that never went anywhere. It just found a new instrument.

Freeman kept going as long as he could. His last transorbital lobotomy was in February of 1967, on a longtime patient named Helen Mortensen. It was the third lobotomy he had performed on her. She died of a brain hemorrhage. And after that, finally, he was banned from operating.

He died in 1972. Cancer. Seventy-six years old.

So what do we do with all of this. Now that it is over.

The first temptation is to say that medicine should never take risks, never cut, never gamble on a desperate patient. That is the wrong lesson, and it is too easy. There are operations on the brain today, narrow, careful ones, for things like severe obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression that nothing else has touched. They involve imaging, and review boards, and real consent, and they are nothing like a man with a mallet in a room full of spectators. Risk is not the villain here.

The villain is the formula. And the lobotomy gives us the formula exactly. Authority, plus desperation, plus weak evidence, plus patients who cannot say no. Put those four things in a room together and you can manufacture almost any horror and call it treatment. That is the warning the ice pick leaves behind. Not “don’t try things.” But “watch who has the power, and watch who has none, when you decide what counts as a cure.”

And the scale should not be allowed to soften with time. Around fifty thousand lobotomies in the United States. More than twenty thousand in Britain, stretching as late as the 1970s. Tens of thousands more across the world. Photographs that survived. Records that survived. Survivors who had to go and read what was done to them, in the dry handwriting of the men who did it.

The instruments survived too. There is a set behind glass at the Smithsonian. Steel, in a leatherette case. People walk past it. It looks like nothing. It looks like tools.

I keep coming back to the taxi.

Sallie Ellen Ionesco, 1946. Put under by electroshock. An instrument through the eye, into the brain. And then, when it was done, a cab home. Like she had been to the dentist. Like it was nothing.

That image holds the whole thing for me. Because the horror of the lobotomy was never only the instrument. The instrument is easy to be afraid of. The harder fear is the taxi. The ordinariness. The way an entire society agreed that this was a normal Tuesday. The newspapers calling it a miracle, the families saying thank you, the prize committee in Stockholm, the cab idling at the curb.

A doctor who watched Freeman work said the operation was no more subtle than a gunshot to the head. And he was right about the violence. But a gunshot, at least, everyone recognizes as violence. This came with a Nobel and a thank-you card.

I’ll leave you with something a neurosurgeon named Henry Marsh said, looking back on all of it. I don’t think it’s an excuse. I think it’s a warning.

“This business of dividing doctors into heroes and villains is wrong. We are all a mix of both. We are a product of our time, of our culture, of our training.”

A product of our time. That is the thing that should keep you up. Walter Freeman was not from another planet. He was a clever, ambitious, charming man, and his culture told him he was helping, and a great many people agreed with him, and he believed it right up to the end.

So here is the question I cannot put down. Not “how could they.” They are too easy to convict, the people in the white coats and the crowded rooms. The question is the other one. What are we doing right now, today, with all our certainty, that someone will tell like a horror story in fifty years. What is our ice pick. What is our taxi home.

I don’t have the answer. I’m not sure I want it.

I’m A.M. Blackmere. Thank you for listening.