
History of Science 170 Blog Post #2
Who Contributes to Medical Knowledge?: Family Members Affect Outcomes and Must Be Recognized, Too
By Nathan Grant
In the 1930s, Dr. Wilder Penfield adopted a novel and promising surgical technique for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. In these surgeries, Penfield used a local anesthetic and electrodes to electrically stimulate different regions of patients’ brains. By using a local anesthetic, Penfield was able to keep his patients awake and talking during surgery. The patients’ spoken reports following each electrical stimulation helped Penfield identify and remove the neural tissues responsible for the patients’ epileptic seizures. The patients’ reports also provided significant information about the brain and the mind.
In her article “Speaking Secrets: Epilepsy, Neurosurgery, and Patient Testimony in the Age of the Explorable Brain, 1934-1960,” Rachel Elder examines the roles and experiences of Penfield’s patients at the Montreal Neurological Institute from the 1930s to the 1950s. As Elder explains in her article, previous studies have focused on the scientific discoveries of the brain that emerged from Penfield’s surgeries. However, “less is known about the patients themselves, including the extent of their contributions, their personal circumstances, or the contexts in which they underwent radical surgery” (Elder, 2015, p. 763). By analyzing the social history and perceptions of Penfield’s patients, Elder is able to identify the patients’ experiences living with epilepsy and celebrate these patients’ contributions to medical knowledge.
Jean was one of Penfield’s first patients to receive surgery and her verbal feedback during surgery provided significant information about the brain. As Elder explains in her article, the electrical stimulations during surgery caused Jean to “twitch and [Jean] reported her sensations with each electrical impulse” (p. 766). These reports helped Penfield “find the source of her seizures” (p. 766). They also helped Penfield create a map of the brain, or somatosensory homunculus, that showed which regions of the brain activated movements of the body (p. 772). In addition to helping understand the parts of the brain, Penfield’s electrical stimulations also caused many of his patients to hallucinate and remember past experiences. As Jean said during her surgery, “I hear a lot of people shouting at me. I feel something dreadful is going to happen” (p. 766). By highlighting quotes from Penfield’s patients, Elder shows how the patients provided significant insights about the brain as well as the mind, memory, and consciousness. However, as Elder explains, none of these insights would have been possible without the patients’ narratives. Penfield’s patients were crucial contributors to the understanding of brain science (p. 778).
While Elder’s efforts to recognize and celebrate the patients’ contributions are remarkable, I am curious about the experiences of the patients’ family members. Elder shows that family members frequently demanded for surgery for their loved ones. As Elder explains, parents, siblings, and spouses of people with epilepsy frequently contacted Penfield for surgery (p. 782). For example, a New York woman insisted that Penfield operate on her sixteen-year-old son with epilepsy. After his surgery, the son was able to move to his own apartment, attend Columbia University, and get married (p. 780). Jean’s family also advocated for her surgery. By advocating for surgery, family members helped affect the outcomes for those living with epilepsy.
Family members played a significant role in getting treatment for people with epilepsy. By advocating for surgery, the family also contributed to knowledge about the brain and the mind. While Elder credits patients’ contributions to brain science, she does not recognize and appreciate family members’ contributions. Consequently, we are not given much information about the experiences and perceptions of the patients’ family members. Why did family members advocate for surgery? Elder does explain that societal stigma and discrimination toward people with epilepsy motivated patients to seek surgery (p. 779). Can we assume this stigma also affected family members and motivated family members to advocate for surgery? What was it like for family members to live and care for people with epilepsy? Did doctors work well with family members?
While it is true that patients provided significant contributions to medical knowledge, it must be recognized that family members also played a very important role. Family members affect patient outcomes and research needs to pay more attention to the experiences of family members.
Who Contributes to Medical Knowledge?: Family Members Affect Outcomes and Must Be Recognized, Too
By Nathan Grant
In the 1930s, Dr. Wilder Penfield adopted a novel and promising surgical technique for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. In these surgeries, Penfield used a local anesthetic and electrodes to electrically stimulate different regions of patients’ brains. By using a local anesthetic, Penfield was able to keep his patients awake and talking during surgery. The patients’ spoken reports following each electrical stimulation helped Penfield identify and remove the neural tissues responsible for the patients’ epileptic seizures. The patients’ reports also provided significant information about the brain and the mind.
In her article “Speaking Secrets: Epilepsy, Neurosurgery, and Patient Testimony in the Age of the Explorable Brain, 1934-1960,” Rachel Elder examines the roles and experiences of Penfield’s patients at the Montreal Neurological Institute from the 1930s to the 1950s. As Elder explains in her article, previous studies have focused on the scientific discoveries of the brain that emerged from Penfield’s surgeries. However, “less is known about the patients themselves, including the extent of their contributions, their personal circumstances, or the contexts in which they underwent radical surgery” (Elder, 2015, p. 763). By analyzing the social history and perceptions of Penfield’s patients, Elder is able to identify the patients’ experiences living with epilepsy and celebrate these patients’ contributions to medical knowledge.
Jean was one of Penfield’s first patients to receive surgery and her verbal feedback during surgery provided significant information about the brain. As Elder explains in her article, the electrical stimulations during surgery caused Jean to “twitch and [Jean] reported her sensations with each electrical impulse” (p. 766). These reports helped Penfield “find the source of her seizures” (p. 766). They also helped Penfield create a map of the brain, or somatosensory homunculus, that showed which regions of the brain activated movements of the body (p. 772). In addition to helping understand the parts of the brain, Penfield’s electrical stimulations also caused many of his patients to hallucinate and remember past experiences. As Jean said during her surgery, “I hear a lot of people shouting at me. I feel something dreadful is going to happen” (p. 766). By highlighting quotes from Penfield’s patients, Elder shows how the patients provided significant insights about the brain as well as the mind, memory, and consciousness. However, as Elder explains, none of these insights would have been possible without the patients’ narratives. Penfield’s patients were crucial contributors to the understanding of brain science (p. 778).
While Elder’s efforts to recognize and celebrate the patients’ contributions are remarkable, I am curious about the experiences of the patients’ family members. Elder shows that family members frequently demanded for surgery for their loved ones. As Elder explains, parents, siblings, and spouses of people with epilepsy frequently contacted Penfield for surgery (p. 782). For example, a New York woman insisted that Penfield operate on her sixteen-year-old son with epilepsy. After his surgery, the son was able to move to his own apartment, attend Columbia University, and get married (p. 780). Jean’s family also advocated for her surgery. By advocating for surgery, family members helped affect the outcomes for those living with epilepsy.
Family members played a significant role in getting treatment for people with epilepsy. By advocating for surgery, the family also contributed to knowledge about the brain and the mind. While Elder credits patients’ contributions to brain science, she does not recognize and appreciate family members’ contributions. Consequently, we are not given much information about the experiences and perceptions of the patients’ family members. Why did family members advocate for surgery? Elder does explain that societal stigma and discrimination toward people with epilepsy motivated patients to seek surgery (p. 779). Can we assume this stigma also affected family members and motivated family members to advocate for surgery? What was it like for family members to live and care for people with epilepsy? Did doctors work well with family members?
While it is true that patients provided significant contributions to medical knowledge, it must be recognized that family members also played a very important role. Family members affect patient outcomes and research needs to pay more attention to the experiences of family members.
Bibliography:
Elder, Rachel. “Speaking Secrets: Epilepsy, Neurosurgery, and Patient Testimony in the Age of the Explorable Brain, 1934-1960.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 89, no. 4 (2015): 761-789.
Elder, Rachel. “Speaking Secrets: Epilepsy, Neurosurgery, and Patient Testimony in the Age of the Explorable Brain, 1934-1960.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 89, no. 4 (2015): 761-789.
Siblings with a Mission is a non-profit, international organization established to serve and support siblings of individuals with complex health conditions and developmental disabilities. All images are found on Google images and are solely used for educational purposes. The stories and advice provided by Siblings with a Mission are not to be replaced by professional advice and counseling but to be considered as an additional source of support.