We have had these techniques for quite some time. If I may refer to what we learned from the Harvard, and other, military experiments of the late 20th and 21st centuries.
Although, let it be said from the beginning; I do agree with detractors. That is, in saying that I find the use of military personnel, or occasionally civilians, for experimentation, especially without their explicit consent, to be a morally ambiguous practice.
I do, however, find medical consent to be an ambiguous construct at the best of times; especially given the reality [REDACTED]. Furthermore, military personnel do sign their lives over to the service of the country quite legally and, for all intents and purposes, of their own free will – with their “eyes wide open”, so to speak. At least to a certain inarguable degree.
This “understanding” in the case of the service member constitutes a level of consent that, I would argue, one would be hard pressed finding up on the wards of a civilian hospital for almost any given procedure.
In any event; despite qualms a reviewer may hold regarding the internal moral or over arching ethical standing of these ongoing practices – such views are, objectively speaking, clinically irrelevant. Indeed, such hang-ups hardly invalidate reliable, replicated, statistically significant results.
If Heidegger has taught us even one thing in the behavioral sciences (one that does not require we learn a second English within English, or German within German); surely, the separation of the common ethic and intellectual advance, is that lesson.
Following this line of reasoning, and quite unclassified, is the work of Dr E Moniz. Dr Moniz’s work on the human frontal lobes was among the best of his era; work which saw him claim no less than the Nobel Prize in medicine, lest we forget.
Similarly, Yale emeritus professor of physiology & psychiatry Dr. Delgado’s (et al) human experimentation series examining affective behavior were both unique and instructive. Especially for those who have seen the footage; it is undeniable that these investigations uncovered an impressive set of results (Tarth-US(CD)MORI).
Yet his work on rDBS (stimoceiver) still remains largely uncapitalised in the mainstream.
Let it be posited here that to withhold a treatment, despite its origins, when there is a high probability said treatment could help some patients find peace; is to place oneself in a position that faces moral and ethical questions of its own.
Such an action would be akin to denying phenomenology due to a personal distaste for Heidegger’s self promotion policies.
And the rDBS evidence, for these maladies in particular, does indeed exist.
Even only taking from what has been declassified for Australia (FOIA-MORI), for example, the literature show that in both a 14 year old and 11-year old set of patients, gender identity and sexuality could be altered with minor stereotactic surgery.
Indeed, one 11yr old boy underwent identity change via rDBS of the superior temporal convolution which:
“… induced confusion about his sexual identity … [the] effects were specific, reliable, and statistically significant”. Among other things, the patient can be quoted as saying “I was thinking whether I was a boy or a girl,’ and ‘I’d like to be a girl“.
There were also many marriage proposals, across patients, reliably induced via more temporally mediated targets.
We have local access to the requisite materials within district; both in terms of candidates and skilled hands. Furthermore, under remit [REDACTED]. Indeed, I use to assist in similar work at [REDACTED] War Memorial Hospital, [REDACTED] Children’s, and [REDACTED] Uniting Private Hospital in [REDACTED] city, Australia. I was involved at all levels, with a very small staff, as could be the case again. I use to assist in bolting the slab cage into the patients’ skulls. With the head shaving and placement of fiducial markers. And in lining up scanner mapping lasers for regional location targeting. And specialists remain on campus as of 2013.
We used non-r DBS for Parkinsonism with great success (internationally renowned), and for depression as well (less publicized).
Surgical talent are skills tested and within GSI extended rank.
And since the loss of the CAST contract, alongside the removal of [REDACTED] and St John in June of 2013, MISO project DSTO funding can be more readily secured via current contract extension through CRC without requiring QCC additional approval (DMTC-GSI-Ext-lscJJR-TBR**).
As indicated by cardiologist/geneticist Dr Eric Topol (of NSAID et al Cox2 Inh JAMA research fame, leading to rofecoxib recall); bio-medico-cyber interventions are already in use across the full spectrum of disease.
It is true that a lot of his work focuses on OBS type data, for medicine. None the less, it remains a truism to say that interventions such as DBS; spinal stimulators; insulin pumps; pacemakers; and even cardio-pulmonary artificial compression devices, are far from novel interventions at this time.
Nor are they set to become any rarer in their applications in the coming days.
Both QCC and GSI would be remiss in passing up such an opportunity to support the field team in taking up a leadership role on this matter. Picking up the psycho-biological slack, and assisting one of their own in moving the behavioural sciences forward (as project PI), can only be of benefit to all involved.
As the long failed epoch of psychiatric medications comes to a close; truly there is an argument to be made for this type of minor neurosurgical application to be given the opportunity to further prove itself in the field.
Candidate names have been provided for trial use in treating resistant GD patients, as well as for use in individuals who find themselves similarly clinically distressed by their homoerotic tendencies.
There is reason to believe such techniques may be vindicated as both more theoretically sound, and more specifically targeting of symptoms, in these populations.
Thus, said treatments could conceivably be of greater benefit to the patient, with more predictable satisfaction outcomes, and with far fewer side effects than the current treatment options provide.
Following the publication of 134 peer reviewed papers, 500 general scholarly articles and 6 books on the topic (Delgado in Blackwell, 2005), Prof Delgado concluded:
“[targeting] specific brain areas…[is] scientifically superior to oral administration of drugs… whose effects [are] mitigated by liver metabolism, the blood brain barrier and uncertain distribution” (SciAm, 2005).
Certainly, if such an approach proved itself to be superior in specificity, and at the level indicated by early trials, then there is a moral imperative to move forward. This more targeted treatment plan is surely more humane than the barbaric use of gross systemic hormones, other chemicals, and surgical reassignment:- where, despite years of clinical application, our abilities are quite simply not adequately adept. And the supportive research literature itself far less theoretically robust.
It is time we turn to a novel alternative. For the sake of progress, and for the sake of these poor patients, both.
J.J., LSC & J.C-R (2018) RePrint . Novel Corrective Brain Surgery for GD & Homosexuality. J. Chron Lett. Sci. Sept. Ed11, (25).Orig 2013.
**Cnslt. Maj. S.G. (Fmr FCO-H-GSI-A01-3) queries [#D4 notice breach review.]
Reply to Dr J.J.R., hc ~ Chron Lett. “GD: Another Look Under the Hood”. *Awaiting confirmation.
Blackwell (2011)– ID:f9da6400-ea5f-4b24-990e-6c259d48eca4.
J AppNeuroPhys (1978)- doi:10.1159/000102436.
J NvsMtDis Oct (4) (1968)- PID5683678.
J Em&CritCMed May (2013)- doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a24e3.
SciAm (2005)-doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1005-66.
MapConv Spring (2) (2001)- http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/2/psychcivilization.php
PhysContMind (1969)- ISBN 0-06-090208-6.
Nobel Pize Medicine (1949):-http://is.gd/9pnmtG
SUNY (Acc 2013)- http://is.gd/xVfKdH