815 - TRACING THE HISTORY OF PSYCHOSURGERY IN INDIA: A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW FROM MYSORE GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL

Session: D18S001 - HISTORY OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
AUTHORS:
Ghani Sarah (OP Jindal Global University ~ Sonipat ~ India) , Dahale Ajit Bhalchandra (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences ~ Bangalore ~ India) , Basavarajappa Chethan (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences ~ Bangalore ~ India) , Ts Jaisoorya (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences ~ Bangalore ~ India) , Jain Sanjeev (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences ~ Bangalore ~ India) , Murthy Pratima (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences ~ Bangalore ~ India)
Abstract text:
Introduction: In the early 20th century, psychosurgery, in particular leucotomy, became well-known around the world as a means of treating serious mental disease. This study examines its early implementation in India at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, formerly known as the Mysore Government Mental Hospital (MGMH).


Purpose: To document the clinical characteristics, procedures, and outcomes of patients who underwent psychosurgery at MGMH between 1939 and 1947 and to place these findings within broader historical and ethical debates in psychiatry.


Method: A comprehensive evaluation of hospital registrations and case files from 1939 to 1947 was conducted. Descriptive analysis was used to extract and examine sociodemographic information, diagnoses, psychosurgery types, and reported results.


Results: Out of 2,584 admissions, 107 patients (63.5% male, majority aged 21-40 years) underwent psychosurgery, predominantly anterior prefrontal leucotomy. The most common diagnosis (51.5%) was schizophrenia. Despite inconsistent outcome documentation, 33.7% of patients were described as "improved", 25.2% exhibited no change, and 7.5% passed away upon discharge. Long-term follow-up and side effects were seldom ever documented. A range of clinical trajectories, from limited improvement to repeated treatments, were depicted in case vignettes.


Conclusions: The popularity of contemporary technological treatments, despite a lack of proof and ethical protections, led to the introduction of psychosurgery in India at the same time as it did in the West. Both the promise and the dangers of its use are highlighted by the ambiguity of documented results. Looking at this history from a decolonial lens highlights how Western psychiatric paradigms were blindly imported into colonial India, frequently without informed consent or indigenous adaptation. Decolonising psychiatry and making sure that future interventions are patient-centered, ethically sound, and culturally grounded require a review of these histories.