Atlas›Domain XVI · Historical, discredited & harmful›Guide 056
Guide XVI-056

Hypothalamic psychosurgery on sexual deviants

Roeder, Orthner, Dieter Müller1962West Germany (Göttingen)
A 33 · L 53 · M 1418 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: the West German programme of stereotactic brain operations on men (and one woman) labelled sexually "deviant", c. 1962 to the late 1970s, as reconstructed by later sexual-medicine and neurosurgical historians (Fuß et al. 2015; Hamel et al. 2016; Payer et al. 2010, 2015) and by the Federal Government's 1979 reply to the Bundestag on the risks of psychosurgery (Drucksache 8/2593). The operations are not recommended.

What it was: from about 1962 into the late 1970s, neurosurgeons in a small number of West German university clinics (and, per later accounts, one centre in Slovakia) carried out stereotactic operations that destroyed part of the hypothalamus, the region at the base of the brain that they held to regulate sexual drive, on people whose sexual behaviour or desire was classed as deviant [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. About 75 people (74 men and 1 woman) are documented as treated. Indications named in the literature included paedophilic behaviour, exhibitionism and repeated rape; in an early ten-patient case series, only about half would today be considered to have a paraphilic disorder, and others were gay men, at a time when homosexuality was still a psychiatric diagnosis (it was removed from the DSM in 1973) [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2010, 2015]. The work came from the Göttingen group of Roeder and Orthner, whose approach was used outside Göttingen only by Dieter Müller in Hamburg [source: Hamel et al. 2016, abstract and references]. Many of those operated on were imprisoned sex offenders, and many were reportedly released after surgery; patients either asked for the operation or were offered it, often under severe psychological strain and the threat of imprisonment, and some as a way to avoid prison time [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2015].

Core idea, as its proponents framed it: that sexual drive and its "perversions" could be reduced by destroying part of the hypothalamus, the brain region held to regulate sexual behaviour, and that this could serve as a "last therapeutic option" for people otherwise facing long detention [source: Drucksache 8/2593 reports the 1978 commission's "letzte therapeutische Chance" framing; Hamel et al. 2016 cites Roeder, Müller and Orthner 1971 and Orthner 1972 and 1982 on the theoretical basis; Fuß et al. 2015 for the region]. Critics, among them the Frankfurt sexologist Volkmar Sigusch and colleagues, opposed psychosurgery in the 1970s as an attempt to control sexual and social behaviour in the name of preventive crime-fighting [source: Tagesspiegel 2010]. After a man operated on in Hamburg in 1976 later killed a child, the practice became a major political issue in Germany, was heavily criticised and was abandoned [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. For the psychotherapist, the "change" that matters is not the operation's claimed mechanism but the client's: understanding what was done, recovering a sense of agency and dignity, and, where relevant, taking responsibility for harm done to others.

Cross-references: lobotomy and other psychosurgery (050 in this domain; Domain IX 029; lobotomy for homosexuality, 070); castration and hormone experiments on homosexual men under Nazism (057); compulsory sterilisation (058), Kellogg's Race Betterment Foundation (059) and Aktion T4 (060); surgical and chemical castration (068); aversion and covert sensitisation (063, 064); conversion practices (family "Conversion practices (SOGICE)").

2. Framework

This is a historical abuse, not a therapy, so the framework has two parts: the historical phases in outline, and the phases of the psychotherapist's work.

Historical phases (outline) [source: Hamel et al. 2016; Fuß et al. 2015; Drucksache 8/2593; Ärzteblatt letter, Ehebald 2005]

  • Origins (1950s to early 1960s): Roeder and Orthner develop stereotactic work in Göttingen; the first operations for sexual behaviour are dated to about 1962.
  • Expansion (1960s to mid-1970s): reports on the "stereotactic treatment of sexual perversions" (Roeder, Müller and Orthner 1971, cited in Hamel et al. 2016); use in Göttingen and Hamburg; candidates include imprisoned offenders and gay men.
  • Controversy (mid to late 1970s): sexologists and psychoanalysts oppose the operations; the 1976 Hamburg case becomes a political issue; the Federal Health Office (Bundesgesundheitsamt, BGA) sets up a commission on stereotactic brain operations for deviant sexual behaviour, with Sigusch and Eberhard Schorsch among the report's authors (Hamel et al. 2016, ref. 70).
  • Official review (1978 to 1979): the commission finishes in November 1978 (BGA-Bericht 3/1978). The government's February 1979 reply says the commission could not give a definitive assessment, set conditions for any operation considered as a last option, and recommended that an independent interdisciplinary body, not the surgeon alone, decide indications; it left open whether operations on children, prisoners and institutionalised people should need court approval [source: Drucksache 8/2593].
  • End and afterlife: the operations were abandoned; a 2005 letter in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt credits the 1978 commission with helping end these "Ausschaltungsoperationen" [source: Ehebald 2005]. No systematic peer-reviewed follow-up was ever published; later follow-up came from a 1989 dissertation and a 2003 self-published book, neither peer reviewed, and from small re-examinations by the Hamburg clinic in 2010 and 2015 [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2010, 2015].

Phases of the psychotherapist's work [synthesis]

  1. Recognition and assessment: notice the history (an older man with a West German forensic or psychiatric history, an LGBTQ+ elder, a descendant), take a careful history of what was done and under what pressure, assess current risk to self and others, and route medical questions to physicians. Move on when there is a shared, accurate account and a safety plan.
  2. Safety and safeguarding: suicide-risk assessment, child-protection and public-protection duties where an offending history is present, and stabilisation. Move on when risk is assessed and managed and duties are met.
  3. Processing and repair: coercion and consent, shame, sexual identity, grief for lost capacities and years, family secrets, and for offending clients responsibility and relapse prevention with specialist services. Move on when the client can hold the history without being flooded and has goals beyond it.
  4. Advocacy, memory and follow-up: records, recognition, commemoration and LGBTQ+ and forensic history; planned endings and open doors.

Format and length: individual work is the default; family or descendant sessions by agreement. Session number and length follow the client's needs and the setting [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

  • Accuracy without sensationalism. Know the documented facts and their limits; mark what is uncertain. Practical meaning: say "about 75 documented cases", not a bigger or vaguer number [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • No replication, no endorsement. The operations are not a treatment option. Practical meaning: never describe how they were done and never suggest, supervise or refer to psychosurgery for sexual behaviour [synthesis].
  • Sexual orientation is not a disorder. Some of those operated on were gay men. Practical meaning: an affirming stance; never treat orientation as a target for change [source: Fuß et al. 2015 on the 1973 DSM change; synthesis].
  • Consent under detention is compromised. "Choice" offered against the threat of prison is not free consent. Practical meaning: explore the pressure a client was under, without telling them they "chose" it [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2015].
  • Treatment is not punishment. The boundary between them must be clear. Practical meaning: in forensic settings, keep your therapeutic role separate from release decisions [source: Fuß et al. 2015; APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05].
  • Hold harm and responsibility together. A client may have been harmed by the operation and also have harmed others. Practical meaning: dignity and accountability in the same frame; neither collusion nor contempt [synthesis].
  • Child and public protection come first where risk is current. Practical meaning: assess current risk and follow your jurisdiction's reporting routes, whatever the history [synthesis].
  • Medical questions go to physicians. Practical meaning: record reported effects (for example on drive, weight, hormones) and refer; never give medical advice or advise on medicines [synthesis].
  • Attribution and even-handedness. Proponents, the commission and critics are cited in their own terms. Practical meaning: "the 1979 government reply said…", "critics argued…" [source: Drucksache 8/2593; Tagesspiegel 2010].
  • Name no patients. Practical meaning: use role descriptions; surgeons only as historians name them [synthesis].
  • The profession's history is part of the work. Medicine, psychiatry and sexology made and stopped these operations. Practical meaning: be ready to acknowledge this plainly when a client raises it [synthesis].
  • Cultural and generational humility. Many affected people are now elderly and grew up under the criminalisation of homosexuality. Practical meaning: ask about the legal and social climate they lived in rather than assuming [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

The interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work; steps not drawn from a cited source are marked [synthesis]. Risk flags (suicide, child protection, coercion) are noted where they apply.

4.1 Building your own historical literacy

  • Purpose: to respond accurately when a client, family or colleague raises this history; to avoid both minimising and exaggerating it.
  • Steps: (1) Learn the documented outline: about 75 documented cases, c. 1962 to the late 1970s, Göttingen and Hamburg, imprisoned offenders and gay men among those operated on, the 1978 BGA commission, the 1979 government reply, abandonment [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Hamel et al. 2016; Drucksache 8/2593]. (2) Note what is not known: there is no systematic peer-reviewed follow-up [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. (3) Place it alongside related histories: surgical castration of sex offenders in post-war Europe, reviewed in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1979 and 1981 [source: NCJRS abstracts of Arch Sex Behav 8(3):281–304 and 10(1):11–19; authors uncertain], Nazi-era persecution of homosexual men, and lobotomy. (4) Keep a short, sourced summary you can share in plain language. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "What is documented is that about seventy-five people in West Germany had these operations between the early 1960s and the late 1970s, and that they were stopped after strong criticism."
  • Watch for: filling gaps from memory or from online rumour; it is working when your statements match the sources and you can say "that is not known" comfortably.

4.2 Recognising the history in a client's account

  • Purpose: to notice when a client, or a client's relative, may have been subjected to these operations or to related coerced treatments.
  • Steps: (1) Hold the possibility in mind for older clients with a West German prison, forensic or psychiatric history from the 1960s and 1970s, for gay men of that generation who report "brain surgery" or "an operation to stop" desire, and for descendants who mention a relative's unexplained operation. (2) Listen for indirect references: a head operation linked to release, "the professors in Göttingen" or "in Hamburg", sudden weight gain or loss of desire after an operation. (3) Ask open questions rather than suggesting the answer. (4) Do not try to confirm the history from your own knowledge; let the client's account and any records lead. [synthesis; settings from Fuß et al. 2015 and Hamel et al. 2016]
  • Example language (illustrative): "You mentioned an operation around the time you were released. Would you be willing to tell me more about what you understood it to be for?"
  • Watch for: leading questions that implant a history; it is working when the client tells the story in their own words and at their own pace.

4.3 Trauma-informed history-taking about coerced medical treatment

  • Purpose: to build a shared, accurate account of what happened without retraumatising.
  • Steps: (1) Agree at the start that the client can pause or stop. (2) Ask first about context (age, legal situation, who proposed the operation, what alternatives were described). (3) Then ask about the client's experience and understanding at the time, then now. (4) Do not ask for clinical or surgical detail; it is not needed for therapy. (5) Summarise back and check accuracy. (6) Record facts and the client's words separately from your interpretation. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "We don't need the medical details. I'm more interested in what it was like for you, and what choices you felt you actually had."
  • Watch for: dissociation, flat recitation, or sudden anger; slow down and ground. It is working when the account becomes more coherent over time and the client feels in charge of the telling.

4.4 Exploring coercion and the meaning of "consent"

  • Purpose: to help the client make sense of a decision taken under severe pressure, often the threat of long imprisonment.
  • Steps: (1) Reflect the documented context: surgery was often requested or accepted under severe psychological strain and the threat of imprisonment, and some were offered it to avoid prison [source: Payer et al. 2015; Fuß et al. 2015]. (2) Name that consent under detention is compromised [source: Fuß et al. 2015 on reduced capacity to consent in detention]. (3) Explore the client's mixed feelings (relief at release, regret, self-blame, gratitude). (4) Help separate responsibility for any offence from responsibility for the operation, which rested with those who proposed and carried it out. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Being offered an operation as a way out of prison is not the same as freely choosing it. Both things can be true: you agreed, and you were under enormous pressure."
  • Watch for: the client using "I agreed" to block grief or anger, or using coercion to deny offending; it is working when the client can hold both strands.

4.5 Medical routing for long-term effects

  • Purpose: to make sure physical and neurological sequelae are assessed by physicians, not by you.
  • Steps: (1) Note reported effects: the literature describes reduced sexual drive, hormonal disturbance and persistent weight gain [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. (2) Ask whether the client's doctor knows about the operation. (3) With consent, refer to the GP or a specialist (endocrinology, neurology). (4) Never advise on medicines or on starting, stopping or changing any treatment. (5) Keep psychological work going alongside. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "It would be worth your doctor knowing about this operation. Would you like help thinking through how to raise it?"
  • Watch for: the client attributing every symptom to the operation or none; it is working when medical questions are with a physician and therapy can focus on meaning.

4.6 Affirming work with gay and bisexual clients who were pathologised

  • Purpose: to repair the message that their sexuality was a disease requiring brain surgery.
  • Steps: (1) State plainly that homosexuality is not a disorder and that the DSM removed it in 1973 [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. (2) Explore internalised shame and how the client's sexual life, relationships and self-image developed afterwards. (3) Make space for grief about lost relationships, desire and years. (4) Offer connection to LGBTQ+ elder and community networks as the client wishes. (5) Do not frame any part of the work as changing orientation. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "What was done to you was based on a view of being gay that medicine itself later dropped. Your sexuality was never the problem."
  • Watch for: the client still referring to themselves in the old clinical language; it is working when self-description becomes the client's own.

4.7 Distinguishing orientation from paraphilic disorder and from offending

  • Purpose: to avoid repeating the historical conflation; Fuß et al. note that only about half of an early series would today count as having a paraphilic disorder, and others were gay [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Steps: (1) Assess orientation, sexual interests, any paraphilic disorder and any offending as separate questions, using current diagnostic criteria and, where needed, a specialist assessment. (2) Do not infer risk from orientation. (3) Record the distinctions clearly. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "I want to ask about these as separate things: who you're attracted to, whether any sexual interests cause you or others harm, and anything the law was involved in."
  • Watch for: your own assumptions, especially with older forensic records that use outdated labels; it is working when your formulation would stand up to a specialist review.

4.8 Working with a client who has an offending history and was operated on

  • Purpose: to hold the client's experience of harm and their responsibility for harm to others in one frame.
  • Steps: (1) Agree the frame: the client's own victimisation will be taken seriously, and so will any risk to others. (2) Explore the offending history factually and without contempt. (3) Coordinate with specialist forensic or sexual-medicine services for risk assessment and relapse prevention. (4) Keep the therapeutic role separate from any evaluation role for courts or release decisions [source: APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 on multiple relationships]. (5) Review risk regularly. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "I can hear how much the operation took from you. I also need us to be honest together about the harm that led there, and about keeping others safe now."
  • Watch for: the client using their own harm to avoid accountability, or your own anger shutting down curiosity; supervision helps. It is working when both themes can be discussed in the same session.

4.9 Safeguarding and current risk to children or others

  • Purpose: to meet child-protection and public-protection duties whenever there is a current risk.
  • Steps: (1) Assess current risk directly, not from history alone; the 1976 Hamburg case shows the operations offered no guarantee [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. (2) Know your jurisdiction's mandatory-reporting and child-protection routes and your service's safeguarding lead. (3) Explain the limits of confidentiality at the start. (4) Where a child may be at risk, follow the reporting route promptly and document. (5) Consult the safeguarding lead and supervisor. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "As I said when we started, if I believe a child is at risk I have to share that with the right people. I'd always try to talk with you about it first."
  • Watch for: reluctance to ask about current risk because the client is elderly or was himself harmed; it is working when risk is reviewed routinely and duties are met.

4.10 Suicide-risk assessment

  • Purpose: to assess and manage suicide risk, which may rise when shame, loss and isolation are revisited.
  • Steps: (1) Ask directly about suicidal thoughts, intent and plans using your service's standard approach. (2) Build a safety plan with the client, including people and services to contact. (3) If means are present, discuss safe storage or removal, without method detail. (4) Give crisis resources: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (US); Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland). (5) Escalate per protocol if risk is high. (6) Follow safe-messaging principles when discussing suicide, including in histories of others. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Talking about this can bring up very dark feelings. Have you had thoughts of ending your life, now or in the past?"
  • Watch for: hopelessness about "what's left" of desire, relationships or years; it is working when the client can name warning signs and use the plan.

4.11 Psychoeducation about the history and its context

  • Purpose: to give the client or family an accurate frame, which often reduces self-blame.
  • Steps: (1) Ask what the client already knows and wants to know. (2) Offer the documented outline in plain language, including that the operations were confined almost entirely to West Germany, were reviewed by a federal commission and were abandoned [source: Drucksache 8/2593; Fuß et al. 2015]. (3) Mention the professional critics as well as the proponents [source: Tagesspiegel 2010; Hamel et al. 2016]. (4) Check what the information means to the client. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "You weren't alone in this. Other people went through it too, and there were doctors at the time who argued strongly that it was wrong."
  • Watch for: information overload or the history displacing the client's own story; it is working when the client says the context helps them understand rather than overwhelms them.

4.12 Family and descendant work

  • Purpose: to support relatives who discover or carry the history, including secrecy, stigma and mixed loyalties when an offence was involved.
  • Steps: (1) Clarify who the client is and what they want (understanding, records, reconciliation, distance). (2) Explore how the history was spoken of or kept silent in the family. (3) Support relatives to hold both the relative's harm and any harm the relative caused. (4) Offer joint sessions only by agreement and where safe. (5) Respect each person's right not to know or not to tell. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Families often find out about something like this in pieces. What have you learned so far, and what would you like to do with it?"
  • Watch for: pressure on an elderly relative to disclose, or a family member being made responsible for the past; it is working when family members can talk about it without it defining them.

4.13 Supporting access to records and testimony

  • Purpose: to help a client who wants to obtain medical, court or prison records, or to give testimony to historians or memorial projects.
  • Steps: (1) Explore motives and hopes, and prepare for records using stigmatising language or being incomplete. (2) Help the client identify which bodies may hold records (the treating clinic, courts, prison administration) and seek legal or patient-advocacy advice on rights of access [uncertain: access rules]. (3) If the client wishes to give testimony, discuss consent, anonymity and the right to withdraw. (4) Debrief after reading records. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Records from that time can use harsh language about you. Shall we plan how you'll read them, and who'll be with you?"
  • Watch for: re-traumatisation on reading files; it is working when the client feels the account is now partly in their own hands.

4.14 Responding to a client who asks for a surgical or medical way to remove sexual desire

  • Purpose: to respond to a client (for example someone distressed by sexual interest in children, or by their orientation) who asks for an operation or another physical way to "switch off" desire.
  • Steps: (1) Take the request seriously and explore the distress behind it. (2) If the distress concerns orientation, take an affirming, exploratory stance and do not attempt change (see the conversion-practices family). (3) If it concerns a paraphilic interest or risk of offending, assess risk and refer to specialist sexual-medicine or prevention services that offer evidence-based care. (4) Never suggest, endorse or refer to psychosurgery. Note that current research discussions of brain stimulation for sexual drive stress that treatment must not be mandatory and needs informed consent free of legal pressure [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. (5) Medical treatments are discussed only by physicians; do not advise on medicines. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like these feelings are causing you a lot of distress. Before thinking about any medical route, can we understand what's going on and get you to a specialist who works with exactly this?"
  • Watch for: suicide risk, current risk to children (see 4.9 and 4.10), and urgency driven by legal pressure; it is working when the client engages with specialist assessment.

4.15 Duties when a colleague or institution proposes coerced somatic treatment

  • Purpose: to act responsibly if a forensic, prison or clinical setting links release or privileges to accepting a body-altering treatment.
  • Steps: (1) Keep your therapeutic role separate from evaluation and release decisions [source: APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05]. (2) Raise concerns about consent under detention with the team, citing the principle that treatment must not be mandatory and the boundary between treatment and punishment must be clear [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. (3) Escalate through your service's ethics committee, clinical governance or professional regulator if concerns are not addressed [synthesis]. (4) Document. (5) Support the client to obtain independent advice. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative, to a colleague): "I'm concerned that tying this treatment to the parole review means we can't be confident the consent is free. Can we take it to the ethics committee?"
  • Watch for: pressure to stay silent in a hierarchical setting; it is working when concerns are recorded and reviewed independently.

4.16 Advocacy, memory and commemoration

  • Purpose: to support clients and communities who want recognition of what was done.
  • Steps: (1) Follow the client's wishes; advocacy is never required. (2) Connect, if wanted, with LGBTQ+ history projects, survivor networks or historians, as those organisations describe themselves. (3) Support the client's voice in any public account and protect anonymity. (4) Within your profession, support teaching of this history alongside lobotomy and castration histories. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Some people find it helps to have their experience recorded or recognised. Others want to keep it private. Both are fine. What feels right to you?"
  • Watch for: the client being used for others' campaigns; it is working when advocacy adds meaning rather than strain.

4.17 Acknowledging the profession's history in the room

  • Purpose: to repair trust when a client's distrust of clinicians stems from what clinicians did.
  • Steps: (1) Expect distrust and name it as understandable. (2) Acknowledge plainly that physicians and psychiatric professionals carried out these operations and that others in the field opposed them [source: Hamel et al. 2016; Tagesspiegel 2010]. (3) Be transparent about your methods and the client's right to stop. (4) Avoid defensive explanation. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "It makes sense that you'd be wary of people like me. Doctors and therapists were part of what happened to you. I'd like to earn your trust, and you can stop or question anything."
  • Watch for: over-apologising that burdens the client; it is working when the client starts testing and then using the relationship.

4.18 Supervision and self-monitoring

  • Purpose: to manage strong reactions (outrage at the history, revulsion at offending, rescue fantasies) that can distort judgement.
  • Steps: (1) Take this work to regular supervision. (2) Notice whether you minimise risk because the client was harmed, or minimise harm because the client offended. (3) Keep your own reading accurate (4.1). (4) Attend to vicarious trauma. [synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative, in supervision): "I notice I'm avoiding the risk questions because his story is so painful. I need help holding both."
  • Watch for: drift in either direction; it is working when your notes show balanced attention to harm, risk and recovery.

5. Handling problems

The problems below are the psychotherapist's own synthesis [synthesis], except where a source is named.

  • The client cannot or will not talk about the operation. Do not push. Work on present goals and safety; signal that the topic is welcome later. Return to it only with consent.
  • The client remembers little or has a confused account. Do not fill gaps with historical facts or suggest details. Work with what is remembered; records (4.13) may help if wanted. Route any concern about cognitive change to a physician.
  • Overwhelm or dissociation when the history comes up. Stop the narrative, ground, and return to stabilisation. Shorten and pace exposure to the material; agree signals for stopping.
  • Shame blocks engagement (about being gay, about an offence, about having "agreed"). Name shame gently, separate its strands (4.4, 4.6, 4.8), and normalise mixed feelings.
  • Anger at clinicians becomes anger at you (rupture). Acknowledge, do not defend; repair openly (4.17). Ask what would make the work safer.
  • The client denies or minimises offending. Keep a non-collusive stance: acknowledge the client's harm and also name what is known about the offence. Involve forensic specialists for risk; review safeguarding (4.9).
  • A current safeguarding concern emerges. Follow child-protection and reporting routes promptly, explain the limits of confidentiality, consult your safeguarding lead and document. This overrides the pace of trauma work.
  • Suicidal crisis. Follow your service's crisis protocol; give 988 (US) or Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland); follow safe-messaging principles (4.10).
  • A family member wants the therapist to confirm what happened. Do not confirm or deny a client's history to others without consent; offer the family general historical sources or their own support.
  • The client asks you to support or arrange a medical intervention to reduce desire. Do not arrange or advise; refer to physicians and specialist services; explore the distress (4.14).
  • Pressure from an institution to report therapy content for release decisions. Clarify your role before therapy begins, decline dual roles where possible [source: APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05], and escalate concerns (4.15).
  • Media or researcher interest in the client. Help the client weigh benefits and risks; protect anonymity; support the right to refuse or withdraw.
  • Your own strong reactions. Use supervision (4.18). Consider a co-worker or referral if you cannot hold both harm and risk.
  • Contested historical claims (for example, that patients were "satisfied" or "reintegrated"). Attribute them: some positive long-term reports came from a non-peer-reviewed dissertation and a self-published book, and from small re-examinations by the operating clinic's successors [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2010, 2015]; do not use them to tell a client how he should feel.

Harm account

What was actually done

From about 1962 to the late 1970s, neurosurgeons at West German university clinics, principally the Göttingen group of Roeder and Orthner and Dieter Müller in Hamburg (the only surgeon outside Göttingen documented as using their approach), performed stereotactic operations that destroyed part of the hypothalamus, at the base of the brain, in people whose sexual behaviour was classed as deviant [source: Hamel et al. 2016; Fuß et al. 2015]. About 75 people are documented (74 men, 1 woman). Those operated on included men convicted of sexual offences against children or women, men with exhibitionism, and gay men at a time when homosexuality was a psychiatric diagnosis [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2010, 2015]. Many were prisoners; operations were requested or offered under the threat of imprisonment, some as a way to shorten or avoid it, and many imprisoned men were reportedly released afterwards [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2015]. The government told the Bundestag in 1979 that such operations for sexual behaviour were performed almost only in West Germany, that the indication was not decided by the surgeon alone while the commission recommended an independent interdisciplinary body to decide it, and that whether operations on prisoners, children and institutionalised people should need court approval was still unresolved [source: Drucksache 8/2593]. Debate over the operations' scientific basis was reported at the time by Rieber and Sigusch and by Schmidt and Schorsch in Archives of Sexual Behavior [uncertain: not verified].

What it looked like to those operated on and their families. For a prisoner, the operation was presented as a medical option that could lead to release; it was performed in a university neurosurgical clinic, and many imprisoned men were released afterwards [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2015]. Afterwards sexual drive was reported as markedly reduced; hormonal disturbances were reported, and most patients gained weight that persisted [source: Fuß et al. 2015]. The only favourable long-term reports came from a 1989 dissertation and a 2003 self-published book, neither peer reviewed, and from small re-examinations decades later by the operating clinic's successors [source: Fuß et al. 2015; Payer et al. 2010, 2015]. Warning signs today: any offer of a body- or brain-altering procedure linked to release, parole or privileges; a client who says they "agreed" to an operation while detained; and unexplained lasting weight gain or loss of sexual drive after a neurosurgical procedure in custody [synthesis].

How it caused harm

  • Irreversible brain injury used to change sexuality and behaviour, without a sound evidence base: the 1978 federal commission could not give a definitive assessment, and no systematic peer-reviewed follow-up was ever published [source: Drucksache 8/2593; Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Bodily effects: reported reduction of sexual drive, hormonal disturbance and persistent weight gain [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Coerced consent: the threat of prison made free consent doubtful; people in detention may have reduced capacity to consent [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Pathologising gay men: subjecting gay men to brain surgery for their orientation [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Blurring treatment and punishment, and a false sense of public safety: a man operated on in 1976 later killed a child [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Silence and stigma: operated people were rarely followed up in a systematic, independent way, leaving them and their families without an acknowledged account [source: Fuß et al. 2015; synthesis].

Recognising it today

  • In clients: older men (and their families) with West German forensic, prison or psychiatric histories from the 1960s and 1970s; gay men of that generation who describe an operation to "cure" or "stop" their sexuality; reported loss of drive or weight gain after an operation linked to release [synthesis].
  • In current practice: any proposal that links release, parole or privileges to a body-altering treatment; research or clinical proposals to alter the brain to reduce sexual drive. Current discussions of brain stimulation for sexual drive warn that it must not be linked to the release practices of the 1970s, must not be mandatory, needs consent free of legal pressure and must keep treatment and punishment apart [source: Fuß et al. 2015].
  • In conversion practices: any treatment aiming to change sexual orientation, which follows the same logic of pathologising orientation (see the conversion-practices family) [synthesis].
  • In professional reflection: neurosurgical authors themselves have called for the ethical and sociocultural implications of these operations to be re-evaluated [source: Payer et al. 2010, 2015].

What to do instead and how to help those harmed

  • Instead of psychosurgery: for distress about sexual orientation, affirming, non-directive care with no attempt to change orientation; for paraphilic disorders or risk of offending, referral to specialist sexual-medicine, forensic and prevention services offering evidence-based assessment and treatment with free, informed consent; medical treatments only by physicians [synthesis; consent principles from Fuß et al. 2015].
  • Survivors: trauma-informed, affirming psychotherapy (4.3 to 4.7), medical routing for long-term effects (4.5), suicide-risk assessment with crisis resources (988 in the US; Samaritans 116 123 in the UK and Ireland) (4.10), and support for records and testimony (4.13).
  • Families and descendants: family work on secrecy and mixed loyalties (4.12); accurate history (4.11).
  • Safeguarding and reporting: where any current risk to children or others exists, follow mandatory reporting and child-protection routes (4.9). Where a colleague or institution ties release to a body-altering treatment, raise it with the team and escalate to ethics committees, clinical governance or regulators (4.15) [synthesis].
  • Legal routes and recognition: clients seeking redress or recognition should be referred to legal advice and patient-advocacy services; survivor and LGBTQ+ history organisations may be contacted as they describe themselves [uncertain: no redress scheme specific to these operations is known].

Sources

← Previous · XVI-054Narcoanalysis and truth-serum interrogationNext · XVI-057 →Castration and testosterone implants of homosexual men under Nazism