[Neurostimulation--endorphins. Personal opinion in the guise of an introduction].
Up until 1974 &amp; 1975, Anesthesiologie observed with a certain reserve progress, which was nevertheless spectacular, in the physiological aspects of pain. The fundamental theory of the inhibition of small algophoric fibres by large fibres (NOOR-DENBOS, 1959), the striking theory of spinal control (WALL and MELZACK, 1965) and even the detection of morphine receptors at the same time paradoxically were associated with little enthusiasm here with only a minimum of mention in the journals. Why this lack of enthusiasm? Undoubtedly because new theories remain speculative when viewed from our own standpoint. Since we have been in existence, our methods of general anesthesia have been based upon solid pharmacological concepts but generally paid little attention to physiology which was of relatively little use and even failed to shed any light upon the pharmacology already mentioned. Our attitude was diametrically opposed to that of neurosurgery which by contrast remained within the technical furrow of physiology. The arrival of encephalins forces us to leave behind such attitudes for three reasons: 1--they clearly throw light into the darkness of a whole area of pharmacology; 2--they open up a pharmacological persepective; 3--they raise a number of theoretical and practical questions, which range from their phylogenesis to the hope of one day possessing morphine-like substances without side-effects.
[Neurostimulation--endorphins. Personal opinion in the guise of an introduction]. Up until 1974 &amp; 1975, Anesthesiologie observed with a certain reserve progress, which was nevertheless spectacular, in the physiological aspects of pain. The fundamental theory of the inhibition of small algophoric fibres by large fibres (NOOR-DENBOS, 1959), the striking theory of spinal control (WALL and MELZACK, 1965) and even the detection of morphine receptors at the same time paradoxically were associated with little enthusiasm here with only a minimum of mention in the journals. Why this lack of enthusiasm? Undoubtedly because new theories remain speculative when viewed from our own standpoint. Since we have been in existence, our methods of general anesthesia have been based upon solid pharmacological concepts but generally paid little attention to physiology which was of relatively little use and even failed to shed any light upon the pharmacology already mentioned. Our attitude was diametrically opposed to that of neurosurgery which by contrast remained within the technical furrow of physiology. The arrival of encephalins forces us to leave behind such attitudes for three reasons: 1--they clearly throw light into the darkness of a whole area of pharmacology; 2--they open up a pharmacological persepective; 3--they raise a number of theoretical and practical questions, which range from their phylogenesis to the hope of one day possessing morphine-like substances without side-effects.