Harkening back to lobotomies is a false dichotomy, the environment in which research is done today wouldn't even allow for an outcome like that.
They are literally shaking small parts of the brain until they act differently. It's not as extreme as a lobotomy but its lobotomy adjacent and a little scary.
Sure, unlike a lobotomy it probably just jostling areas of the brain and not damaging entire sections with an icepick, but it's still fair to accept that some people (like myself) feel automatic body horror and fear at the idea of parts of my brain being damaged.
In fact the second treatment is also standard issue for all those who are diagnosed with oppositionism, a growing mental health disorder characterized by symptoms such as distrusting government authorities and forbes 500 companies. Treatments show a 90% reduction of symptoms and improving quality of life, for example they no longer clash with authorities or make hate statements as defined by the patriot act II of 2028.
Obviously an exaggeration, but there is a real concern. The line is blurry and will be crossed if we let it happen. Taking intravenous drugs for 20 years does some serious damage. It's nice if we develop a treatment for it, but it also shifts the focus away from prevention. People shouldn't be reaching that point, and wouldn't if we were acting on it.
Panicking about new treatments because "they" might someday bundle them with other treatments isn't particularly effective, because you can just decline the treatments you don't want. The days of no-oversight asshole doctors drilling holes in people for being weird are conscripted to the past. If patient rights to refuse treatment are destroyed, then sure, freak out all you want.
Meanwhile, research is not a zero-sum game. Treatments and prevention can be, and are, worked on in parallel, often by people with wildly different research backgrounds. Specifically, the resources and personnel involved are not fungible. Discouraging field A because you'd rather have someone work on field B doesn't necessarily mean anyone will work on field B, it just guarantees you don't make progress in field A.
If I were in that position I might seriously consider the value of having 99% of me make it to the other side of this misery in exchange for the 1% of my brain that is ruining my life.
No, from what other comments have said, they are using ultrasound to open the blood/brain barrier so that drugs can enter the affected area. They aren't indiscriminately shaking the patient's brain and hoping for the best.
With regards to the body horror thing, that is legitimate and there is the possibility that we look back on this in 20 years like we do with lobotomy. I personally think it's unlikely considering the differences in how research is regulated compared to the past.
In general I think we need to reframe how we look at medical treatments. Changing the brain is literally the point - it's dysfunctional. Whether that be through physical manipulation like this or via pharmacology, something HAS to change functionally or there will be no difference. Until the point that we have nano robots carrying out bodily processes for us it's on our brain and body to adapt to whatever environmental stress it's exposed to, for better (exercising improving health for example) and for worse(trauma causing increased likelihood of addiction etc). This treatment is no different from anything else, all that matters is the positive or negative reaction.