Talk:Rosemary Kennedy

Doctor's Qualifications

I noticed this particular article contains the following statement: "Watts performed his neurosurgery training at Massachusetts General Hospital and later became chief of neurosurgery at George Washington University Hospital. Highly regarded, Dr. Watts became the 91st president of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia." I fail to see how this is helpful or necessary in this particular article - a brief summary of one of the attending physicians is pointless. Personally, I also find the statement somewhat incongrous - there is no similar description of Mr. Freeman's qualifications (or his subsequent history). I find the only possible rationale behind such a statement is to predjudice the reader towards a particular interpretation of the surgery - which is a controversial issue, as the article further examines. This is supported by the fact that there is no similar summary of Mr. Freeman's relatively less glowing subsequent history in the description of the surgery.

In any case, the information on Dr. Watts would be more suitable in a short article on him - however, I am too inexperienced to provide such an article. I suggest making a stub article about Dr. Watts, in the interests of brevity and clairity - all considerations of possible bias aside - and changing the summary to:

"Joseph Kennedy had the procedure done by neurologist Walter Freeman, director of the laboratories at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C., together with his partner, Dr. James W. Watts, MD, from the University of Virginia - a highly regarded, and later prominent, neurosurgeon."

I hope this satisfies both sides, and doesn't encourage any edit wars.

-Haemo

I think part of the reason the details are there is that earlier versions of the article seemed to imply that Rosemary's father was negliegent in getting unqualified physicians for the procedure; I believe these facts are to counter that impression. I don't think Watt's should get an article, too little to say about him, although Freeman does have one. I will think about this some more. GangofOne 06:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

-GangOfOne

My proposed summary would still give indication of his credentials, without the un-necessary amount of information unrelated to the topic at hand; that is, it would ensure that the false impression of him being an anonymous crank is avoided, while providing a more concise, fluid and appropriate summary of his credentials. It is understandable that Freeman would have an article about him; he is a prominent historical figure in some respects. It is my belief that the amount of information given is unsuitable to the encyclopaedia format - it is, as you have said, all we know about him, and constitutes a pointless (and possibly prejudicial) aside. The fact that we was later a the 91st President of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, or the history of his medical training is not really part of an article about Rosemary Kennedy and should be removed. Haemo

I don't understand what you mean by these facts being prejudicial. Prejudicial of what? Also, I think the specificity of "chief of neurosurgery at George Washington University Hospital. Highly regarded, Dr. Watts became the 91st president of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia." is a lot more convincing than unspecific generalities like "highly regarded, and later prominent, neurosurgeon." GangofOne 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is, and remains to be, a considerable debate over the reasoning behind the actions of the Kennedy family with regards to Rosemary Kennedy's lobotomy. I do not feel strongly either way, but it seems to me that one of the major bones of contention has been the appropriateness of the operation provided, as one can readily tell from reading the literature on the subject. Even at the time of the operation there was, to quote from [[lobotomy], "a strong division amongst the medical profession as to the viability of the treatment and concern over the irreversible nature of the operation". There are reasonable questions that can be asked about whether or not the doctors gave Mr. Kennedy good counsel with regards to Rosemary's condition - that is an aspect of this whole situation which should not be overlooked. If you look at the two attending physician's summaries in this article, you will see:

1) No mention of Dr. Freeman's lack of surgical training, or his subsequently sordid relationship with the medical community.

2) Contrast this to Dr. Watts, wherein there is extensive mention of his medical training, and mention of his prominent stature later in the medical community.

I cannot help, and I hope that this is not an unreasonable inference, that the article does not accurately give a complete portrait of the attending doctors, and that incompleteness is entirely skewed towards the negative. It seems reasonable that if Dr. Watts' future accomplishments are to be brought into a discussion of the article, it is only fair that his partners activities should also be brought into the discussion. I, however, do not advocate doing so - I would say that simply trimming the section on Watts, as I have outlined, would suffice to eliminate this inconsistency in the treatment of the two doctors. -Haemo

I think it is better to add facts rather than take away. Watts doesn't have an article, but Freeman does , where you (and the readers of this article) can find out he attended Yale and U of Pa Med School and rest of his history. If you have more facts, add them. (I have not read the books on Freeman and lobotomy.) Also their roles are different. Perhaps Freeman is the one who convinced Joe Kennedy, Freeman seems to be a prosyletizing advocate of his procedure and maybe oversold it. If you have any info how it came to be that Joe Kennedy was convinced, then add it. In the current case, Freeman's lack of surgical training is less relevant, he didn't do the surgery, Watts did, so Watts really is the more important figure. I think the article should , and does, try to point out the exploratory/experimental nature of the surgury. Maybe it could emphasize more that lobotomy was not well-tested and thus perhaps irresponsible to do to her, as it would be regarded today. One thing that could well be added was the lack of patient informed consent, which today is the norm. At the time Rosemay was 23, an adult, and based on what I read in her diary, I would say she is far from a vegetable; why did Joe Kennedy have the right over her to have her operated on? (Of course, the standards of consent were different then, but this case shows WHY the standards had to be changed.) If you are saying the surgery was a mistake , I agree with you; if you are saying lobotomy in general by Freeman/Watts was a mistake, I agree with you; if you say Joe Kennedy had his own interests in the forefront over Rosemary's, I agree with you. If you can add some documented information that brings this out in the article , then please add it. (Most of what I know about the topic comes from the one chapter of the Kessler book; I recommend it. But maybe there are more sources?) GangofOne 04:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Walter Freeman's status at the time of Rosemary Kennedy's operation, the Wikipedia article on the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology states that he was one of the founders (in 1934) and he was their president from 1946 to 1948. So, despite his controversial activities and his showmanship, he was also a senior member of the medical establishment. Freeman was not the only doctor without full surgical training to adopt one surgical procedure as his own: surgeons generally do not approve, and indivdual hospitals' rules may not allow it, but in 1941 it would not have been illegal. NRPanikker (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, James W. Watts has his own Wikipedia page too. NRPanikker (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lobotomy video

What is the relevance of the external link captioned as "YouTube Lobotomy Video"? I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it to find out. If it says something about Rosemary Kennedy, we should indicate what. If it is a general video on lobotomy, it doesn't belong here and probably amounts to linkspam. We don't link a general video on Alzheimer's from the Ronald Reagan article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

comments by Majnun99

I've moved these from the article to here. Gamaliel 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mental Illness and Mental Retardation are not mutually exclusive--one is a matter of intelligence and the other is matter of regulation of mood and perception of reality. An individual can be mentally retarded and mentally ill at the same time. I am not an expert, but I work for a mental heatlh agency, we have many clients who are both mentally ill and mentally retarded. One of our psychiatrists, who specializes in treated mental illness in mentally retardated individuals, indicates that it's a common misconception that mentally retarded people can't have a mental illness. He also stated in a seminar that people who have mental retardation have a higher risk of developing mental illness than people who are not mentally retarded because mentally retarded people often develop a high level of frustration because of their inability to communicate effectively with others, and because the brain tissue is often unhealthy due to lack of oxygen at birth, congenital anomalies of brain structure, or other problems. On a related note, individuals who have Down's Syndrome have a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease than people who do not have Down's Syndrome. My point is just that if Rosemary Kennedy was mentally ill, it does not automatically mean she could not have been mentally retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majnun99 (talk • contribs)

Rosemary's day lost in Chicago

no reference for this story. Sounds made up. --GangofOne 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

---

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050115/ai_n9697034/pg_1 - very interesting read. PMA 15:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The artcile seems to be no longer available. I grew up in Chicago, and I do recall an unusual news item about a Kennedy sister getting lost during a trip downtown, but eventually recovered safely. If someone has a date, I could check Tribune archives. WHPratt (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19751005&id=BfBLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=au0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7332,2760315&hl=en 2601:80:4003:7416:4CC:209B:9E18:6E9A (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

States Freeman was neurosurgeon - conflicts with main Freeman article

The Freeman article says he was NOT a surgeon. Can a knowledgeable person correct this article, if it is in error? 68.46.96.38 06:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the responsible authorities will not say anything about this person, we just have the traditional knowledge in the Internet: There, Freeman is described as a very low-qualified person, who had weird theories about gravitation, microbiology and neurology, and who lost its license to practice due to a blunt false estimation about gravitational force, which killed a patient much earlier than usual (he was alone with that patient (nobody dared to watch or they were already lying on the floor vomiting...) and wanted to have a photo and when he stepped back the "ice-pick" sunk into the back-brain, which did not tolerate the damage). -- So Freeman had the license to do surgery inside the brain, although nobody seems to understand today, where he got it, and how such malfeasance could happen. Freeman needed assistance by a "real" surgeon (who could bore holes into the skull, and who could sew), until he found a way to do it alone. --Homer Landskirty 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Freeman was a fully-educated and trained neurologist M.D. Almost all neurologists engage in purely medical treatments of brain & nerve diseases. [People need to learn the difference between a neurologist and a neurosurgeon - who obviously is a highly-trained & specialized surgeon.] However, all M.D.s in their training study anatomy & surgery, and there is no law against any licensed M.D. from performing surgery. Freeman did this, even though he was really a neurologist. Patients should not see neurologists for neurosurgery - they really, really need to go to fully-qualified neurosurgeons if they think that they might need neurosurgery. Go to a neurologist for diseases like multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and the hundreds of other known neurological diseases, and take their medicince and other treatments, but not surgery from them.

A similar problem in the press is the confusion between a cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Cardiology is a branch of internal medicine that emphasises medical treatment of heart diseases. A real cardiac surgeon has years of training in actual surgery on people's hearts. Go to one of these if you need a heart operation. DAW

use of perjoratives

The third paragraph under Family and early life, including footnotes 5 - 11, should be trimmed significantly. Words like moron, imbecile, and idiot are all perjorative; it should simply say she was mentally ill. Since the whole paragraph and most of the article itself comes from one source, and the repeated footnotes come from a few pages of that source, it seems appropriate to say something like "Rosemary was deemed mentally ill," with one footnote: Leaming, pp. 136 - 166 and leave out the idea that "morons" were more dangerous than "idiots." Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Those were accepted medical terms in the early 20th century, and only gained their pejorative meanings later, much like the term "retarded", which was still acceptable in the 1970s, phased out in the '80s, and is no longer acceptable as neutral descriptor. Use of the terms in the articles provides context for the times and the decisions that were made. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Boneyard 99 is correct. Imbecile, idiot, and moron have specific meanings, defined by IQ ranges. The Association of Retarded Citizens used the term in its name until just recently. The Catholic institution in which Rosemary was hidden from public view once had the phrase "Backward Youth" in its name.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing the paragraph would not be "censorship." The article is not meant to provide "context for the times," which would be an invitation to deface any biography of any person. It should be a straight biography of this obscure person. Using the opinions of Henry Goddard, Eunice Kennedy or an unnamed "mother's cousin" detracts from the articles purpose: to provide factual information about an individual. Thus, their opinions should be removed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The american people uses the phrase mental health in the United States today. American society has changed. Evolved. Calling a young woman as "mentally ill" seems to me a setback to the dark ages. A Nazi-facist language. Anyway: Rosemary was a victim of the worst violence: family violence. Her father treated her - and the other Kennedy children - not as human beings - but as commodities. I only hope that this man has found in the dead the peace he never had in his life.Bryard (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Last section

Two things are troubling: The length of the article seems inappropriate for this obscure and unimportant person. Does someone who attempted and achieved nothing in life deserve 48 citations - most of which come from just two sources? The last section, titled "Mental Condition," should be completely removed. It is based on a book called "Sins of the Father," which is a dead giveaway of bias, and repeatedly attacks the Kennedy family with words like disgrace, failure, banished and rejection. It also appears to be little more than publicity for the author, Ronald Kessler, who is mentioned by name six times, as if the whole thing was written by Kessler himself. The entire article needs a dispassionate review from an editor.Polkadreamer (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, Polkadreamer, but I really don't like someone driving by here to say a subject, who was reduced from a beautiful young woman to someone unable to speak, achieved nothing in life. I went to the trouble of reading two books on this subject, as recommended here. For example, as I recall Ms. Kennedy learned to read Winnie the Pooh before she was given a lobotomy. Find another source if you like. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To Polkadreamer: I can see why your point. She really didn't accomplish anything herself. But a well-written article is a well-article. I find it complete, but not overly detailed (trust me, some articles are much worse). It's not R. Kennedy's accomplishments that make her significant, but rather what happened because of her, or because of what happened to her. Her tragedy brought to the attention of the public the inefficacy of some of the psychiatric treatments of the day, like lobotomies and electroshock therapy; made public the abuses of a wealthy family; and since then has put Joseph Kennedy under a more realistic light. As a child, I used to hear adults talk about how wonderful the Kennedy family was for "not being ashamed of Rosemary", and treating her with dignity and humanity, etc., so there have been times when people looked through rose-colored glasses. I read the article with interest, and found it informative. It could probably use some fine-tuning, but it's mostly acceptable.Boneyard90 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Consider this: the Wikipedia article(s) on Joseph Kennedy, Sr. has 49 citations, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 30 citations, Jean Kennedy Smith 19 citations, Joseph Kennedy, Jr. 6 citations, Patricia Kennedy Lawford 2 citations, and Kathleen Kennedy Cavendish 2 citations. But the article on Rosemary Kennedy has 48 citations. Wikipedia is not designed as a place to repeat everything that strangers said about a person, but the important things they achieved. Can anyone argue that Rosemary Kennedy deserves an article substantially longer than any of her sisters - including Eunice, the U. S. Ambassador who founded the Special Olympics? Polkadreamer (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Polkadreamer. Apologies for my earlier hissy fit. Five or six refs could be combined (for example, "Leamer, p. 203."). But I don't agree that comparing the raw number of references between articles makes as much difference as you seem to think it does. Different editors have different styles plus they are each using different sources (a web news obituary might summarize a whole lifetime in one easy-to-reuse ref, for example). Also I could combine a lot of pages (for example, to say "Leamer, pp. 137, 138, 163, 164, 165, 166, 203, 204, 227, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256" etc.) to reduce the raw number of refs. But later editors would have to untangle every single one of those changes. That said, I am available to reword and to remove Kessler's name as needed. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done I combined a number of references (which I should have done before). Also I labeled Kessler in his own section. Thank you, your comment led to improvements. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Polkadreamer: You seem obsessed with the number of references. Wikipedia isn't about the length of the article you think an historical figure deserves. Somebody took the time to write about Rosemary. As long as it doesn't break the more objective standards of over-detailing, I have no problem with it (example: we don't need to know what Rosemary had for Sunday breakfast, nor do we need to know what Elvis or William the Conqueror had for Sunday breakfast. That would be too much detail for na encyclopedic entry on any historic figure) But to decide that this article is too long in comparison to some other person's article, simply because you think the other person deserves another article, doesn't mean you should cut down this one. That's a bit arbitrary. If you think Eunice deserves a longer article, you should go improve Eunice's article. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Must agree with Polkadreamer: article-length should reflect the degree of notability, and not whether someone 'took the trouble' to write it at its present length. People often 'take the trouble' to promote their own agendas on wiki, out of proportion to their notability. Valetude (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There is hardly universal agreement on what constitutes notability. At minimum for this website there must be sufficient publicly available information and it must be from sources that were both deliberately addressing the topic and are adjudged reliable. IOW someone viewed it as notable enough to publish for lack of a better term and the publisher or writer is adjudged to be someone whose output has enough cache generally to be taken as notable. Notability is not a reward bestowed by an arbiter of merit. Many serial killers are more notable than many surgeons, although a doctor may save vastly more lives than a serial killer takes. The chefs attached to the various Food Network shows are at the moment more notable than someone who may have invented an entirely new cuisine but hasn't been able to get enough recognition to win an award, or even a glossy profile in the New York Times. Did Jon-Benet Ramsey "accomplish" anything? Are O.J. Simpson's football records less notable than the fact that his wife was murdered, and that he was formally acquitted of the crime, only to be held "civilly liable" and then convicted of a different crime? Ultimately, Wikipedia will always default to the wisdom of a mass audience because to do otherwise would require it to be a personal project mirroring the priorities of an individual or a selected few. Accuracy Banshee (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The article appears to have been cleaned up, but this last section is troubling, as others have pointed out. This section is based on Kessler's book, Sins of the Father, a title which should automatically raise red flags about objectivity. The sentence about someone tapping their skull and saying "not right in the head" is in bad taste and really has nothing to do with Ms. Kennedy. None of the opinions expressed in this section apply as biography. The last sentence in the section stating an insult as fact is obviously inappropriate. The entire section promoting Kessler's book should be removed as irrelevant bias.Ononuofk (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's something else wrong with the section: too much "close paraphrasing". Way too much, IMHO... Doc talk 06:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of paraphrasing. Try to get a more experienced copyeditor to help. Spelling Style (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Joe Kennedy Propaganda Piece

The article states that "Rosemary Kennedy became increasingly assertive and rebellious. She was also reportedly subject to violent mood changes." Says who? There is no source for any of those statements, and without references, the statements are nothing more than propaganda for the Kennedy family, trying to hide its complicity in the abuse to which Rosemary was subjected when her father had her undergo the lobotomy merely to satisfy his wounded ego at having fathered a less-than-normal child.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of article edit

I have removed the last section referring to the Kessler book - and before anyone restores it, consider how the article reads without the last section. It still gives two Kessler references, and still refers to Ms. Kennedy's mental condition and the lobotomy, without the hearsay about Joseph's mistress, or the "not quite right" quote, or the crack that Joseph Kennedy "abandoned" his daughter. I agree with others that the article simply doesn't need the last Kessler section at all, since it provides no information about Rosemary herself. I also consolidated some of the Leamer citations. All sources that were listed before are still listed. Again, consider the updated article and ask if it is not more precise and cleaner.Princetoniac (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article was vandalized by an anonymous editor in the past few hours and the vandalism was reverted. If you have this article watch-listed, please be on the lookout for possible vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cousin marriage

I removed the following sentence since no ref is provided to explain even who the relative was who held the opinion: "Her mother's cousin thought the marriage of second cousins by Rose's parents, John Francis "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald and Mary Josephine "Josie" Hannon, caused the condition." An explanation is already in the article of hypoxia during birth. Edison (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Mood swings

The article mentions Rosemary's "violent mood swings" but other sources, such as History.com do not describe her as volitile. Rosemary was acting out due to frustration that she could not keep up with her sibling's accomplishments nor experience the freedom they had. She was described as a gentle, loving child. 32.223.182.210 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)