ABithell - This may be a nit pick, but your statement “no-one is forced to take antbiotics” is not true. People with tuberculosis and other highly contagious diseases can be forced, if necessary, into quarantine until medical treatment is complete. In these cases the threat to the public (epedemic) outwieghs the individual’s rights. In no way am I advocating forced ECT, just setting the record straight.
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck forever.
Okay, I know I should probably let this drop but, I hate being criticized by misquoting.
There are in fact, occasions when a patient’s right to say “no” to treatment are superceded by the public’s right to protection from the patient’s disease – whether that is infectious or psychiatric disease. As an extreme example, I don’t think most people would object to quarantining a person infected with Ebola Zaire (or a similarly infectious and dangerous disease) – whether or not that person objected. It is not a matter of “us right, them wrong” it is a weighing of risk to patient vs. risk to population.
I do not advocate ECT except as ONE option for the treatment of major depressive disorders (See my first post).
The evidence for the effectiveness of ECT in the treatment of major depression is pretty darn strong - 90% or more of people treated show evidence of significant remission of depression. This is validated by BOTH “blind” third party raters and by patient self-ratings. These results are even more impressive when you consider that the patients recommended for ECT usually have not responded to 3 or more drug treatments.
Please be a little cautious in tossing around comparisons with Hitler et al. Even if your comparison were valid on the grounds of means or result (which it most certainly is not), it is invalid on the grounds of motive. ECT is used as a therapy of last resort – Not as a sadistic implementation of a “Final Solution” for obstreperous people. To suggest otherwise is demeaning to the 10+ million victims of the Holocaust and their families.
So now we got two ‘‘experts’’ ganging up on me eh? Good, that’s the way I like it.
Mr.Jackson, I think comparing the abused ‘‘mentally ill’’ to removing the rights of Typhoid Mary is really clutching at straws, certainly, as you say yourself, ‘‘picking nits.’’ Real doctors support the concept of ‘‘first doing no harm’’, and rather than picking nits, would support a line of argument that seeks to protect the vulnerable.’’ Hence the ‘‘Mr’’.Sorry, but you suck as a doctor.
llamafresh, at least the above mentioned individual has the guts to identify himself in his username. Would you like to do likewise? The comparison with the Nazis is more appropriate than perhaps you would like known. Who do you think carried out, many with enthusiasm, the obscene orders of Hitler re: the ‘‘mercy’’ killing of mentally handicapped children, one particular beast keeping the brains for later study? DOCTORS, FREQUENTLY PSYCHIATRISTS, that’s who.
Funny how the right wing of medicine frequently describe the most violating of ‘‘treatments’’ as ‘‘mercy-based’’ or ‘‘life saving’’.
You may know that even The Royal College of Psychiatrists, (UK), who are still pro-forced shock, released the Benbow Report last year where they admitted that TWENTY FIVE PERCENT of psychiatrisys giving shock had seen DEATH OR SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES arising from the application of shock. I can send copies to anyone interested. The medics are having a bit of a time over here explaining that one away and changes in the law are expected.
So, just because mommy and daddy had the dollars to send people with white coats and numerous letters after their name to college don’t mean they have the monopoly in the genius stakes. Given enough time and cash, you can teach a horse to count.If you then give him a job in ‘‘WE SAY SO DRUG CORP.’’, he might even be able to dole out pills.
You can’t buy the ability to be humane however. Or honest.
Well, ABithell, we do seem to have a bit of a temper.
I have no current stake in the ECT debate, and I chalk up much of the “information” in this thread to opinion - even if it is opinion based on personal experience. But if you represent something as fact on this board, such as your “no-one is forced to take antbiotics” quote, you had better be able to back it up. Perhaps if you had read the last sentance in my previous post, you would have understood.
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck forever.
Okay, AB. Since your last message was almost entirely given over to personal attacks, I am going to sign out of this thread. If you want to avoid discussion by using insults, that’s your choice - but, I don’t choose to participate.
I would only observe that the Benbow Report did not conclude a 25% death or damage rate from ECT but rather a 25% overall side effect rate. That’s about the same or less than the overall side effect rate of most antidepressant drugs. In fact, the death rate with ECT is actually somewhat lower than the drugs because of a reduced rate of suicide in ECT treated patients.
It’s fine to take a stand AB but, at least get your facts straight and don’t try to make your case with strawman arguments based on misrepresentation.
[QUOTE]
TWENTY FIVE PERCENT of psychiatrisys giving shock had seen DEATH OR SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES arising from the application of shock.]/QUOTE]
Specious argument at best. 100% of cardiac surgeons I know have seen death or serious consequences arising from the performance of coronary artey bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Some of those surgeries have been performed on patients who barely understood English let alone the possible consequences. Should we not condone it because it is an incredible cash cow for docs and hospitals?
ECT is not inherently evil. Heart surgery is not inherently bad. Their application to humans can be, however. Don’t dismiss any therapy out of hand because of public mis-perception or hysteria. And don’t ever assume that your doctor is a genius just because it says M.D. after his name. Be aware of risks and be ready to stand up for yourself or loved ones.
This thread has mutated from the original context but still has some good points and cogent ideas.
I stand by my opinion of ECT: a useful tool when applied appropriately. Nowhere in that opinion is the approval of using ECT frivolously or punitively or giving treatments to persons not aware of the consequences.
Llamafresh. Quite simply, you do not know your facts. Anyone wanting to verify that this guy does not know what he is talking about should contact either the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Belgrave Square London, or the UK Psychiatric Bulletin. The full title of the paper concerned is ‘‘Electroconvulsive therapy practice in north west England, by Susan M. Benbow, David Tench and Simon P Darvil.’’ '‘Twenty-Five percent had experience of death or serious…’'This is a 1994 study, not 1944, 54 or 64. Published in 1998.
As to the Banker, well I hope the next stock market crash sends you to a pro-ECT shrink, as, judging by your username and evident interest in things medical, you may well have frustrated ambitions that you could do with curing by actually sampling the goods for yourself. As you said yourself,a nitpicker.
One thing that the pro-shock camp cannot stand is informed debate. The arguments cannot stand the light of day.
I’m still waiting for my memory to come back, and I’m celebrating the 1st year anniversary with lots to drink (after writing 3 term papers over the weekend). Still waiting for those wonderful effects from ECT to come back that persuaded me to do a tap dance for the kids and instructors at the medical school across the street while receiving those treatments (but for the life of me can’t remember what I said). Anybody want the baby grand I can no longer play, having lost my “musical ear” and ability to read music after being shocked 6 Xs? I’m not giving it away free, though. When I figure the damage I suffered from receiving these great treatments, the damage it caused to my skeleton and joints, and any new surprises that’ll cost me money. . . whatever I could’ve gotten if I had the money and guts to sue. Golly gee, I lost more memory with 6 ECT treatments than I did after the car accident I was in resulting in a depressed skull fx.! Post ECT I am now “abusive,” “non-cooperative”–a whole new me! Marvelous tool, that ECT. Professional, legalized Russian Roulette (and I didn’t say the “N” word).
I don’t know what sort of a doctor can inflict repeated electrical closed-head injuries, and not recognize the signs of
organic brain syndrome. If all so-called mental illnesses are supposed now to be brain disease or brain disorders then these idiots better get some training in elementary neurology. These sub-rate physicians are simply mistaking the euphoria and confusion of brain trauma and memory loss for improvement of so-called mental illness.
It’s an unforgivable scam, on a collossal scale, it’s as simple as that. No study has ever shown any lasting antidepressant effect from ECT. It’s a high price for the survivor to pay, when brain damage is such a distinct possibility, if not probability, for a few weeks relief from overburdening emotion.
----- excerpted from a recent survey done of 500 electroshock (so-called) patients -----
This survey can be found at url http://members.aol.com/wmacdo4301/electro/papers/equest.htm
What do a nuclear physicist, a chef, a Royal Marine commando, a plumber and 7 nurses have in common?
Answer: They are all linked by the same experience — powerful electric shocks through their brains that left a legacy of profound after-effects.
And these are just a sample from literally hundreds in our files — all shocked, not accidentally, but deliberately, by doctors who assured them it was a safe and effective way to cure their mental problems.
They have never met each other, yet again and again they describe similar effects that have disrupted their lives, ended their careers and left them with dull and blunted minds.
They ask:
why do I feel like a robot?… why have I no feelings any more?…
why am I so fatigued all the time?… why can't I remember day to
day things like I used to?… are others as scared as I am of visiting the doctor?
After first hearing of us, many spent weeks gathering the courage to ring and tell their story. Some spoke for hours, relieved beyond measure to find at last someone who understood and believed what they were saying. Many felt they had been “mentally raped”.
Here’s an interesting “what if” for everyone to chew on: What if John Coltrane had not been sprung from Bellvue Hospital before the doctors scheduled his ECT treatment?
My supposition: If Coltrane had been given ECT, the Jazz lexicon would by shy many works of genius.
Fact from an NPR show on Coltrane I heard last year: Upon learning that Coltrane was scheduled for Electro Convulsive Treatment (known then as “Electroshock”), his private shrink got that man the hell out of Bellvue. This is not just a fantasy from a critic of unquestioned psychiatry. This is factual information availiable from medical records as well as biographies on John Coltrane.
No disrespect intended for anyone. You want facts, I give facts. Any opinions and suppositions I offer are listed as such. Consider carefully and draw your own conclusions.
One last question: if your computer was having a problem with it’s hard drive, would you fix it by driving a power surge through the circuitry? I sure wouldn’t. For some reason, the inventors of ECT who did not know anything about physical models similar to the human brain must have figured that the best way to “initialize” a human brain would be the equivalent of passing a power surge through it. Fortunately, the human brain is a lot more complex than a mere motherboard and hard drive setup. Unfortunately, a brain is not replacable.
I refuse to get emotional about this debate. Rather, I would like to encourage reasoned discussion. I also refuse to flame others as flame wars just show who can pee the farthest. I will respect the dignity of everyone here, no matter how much I disagree with those I see as bankers who dabble in subjects unrelated to banking and psych techs who have seen too much and only talk to their own kind to share notes. (I apologize I am offending anyone. That is not my intention here.)
We all have much to learn from each other, and at least I know whom to ask concerning investments or observations on working in a psych ward. In all professions, there are “angels” as well as “devils”–I use these terms broadly. Yes, tools themselves are neither good nor evil, but the ones who use those tools can fall under either one of those two catagories. Consider the phrase “the banality of evil” and the quote, “The only thing that allows evil to flourish is for the good to do nothing.”
Considering the broad spectrum that we all carry within us, all of us are a step away from either good or evil. Many times, we do both at the same time. Being human is never easy, meaning that we all make mistakes. I just hope that I am never on the receiving end of an ECT “mistake.”
Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument, but greatly to find quarrel in a straw. --Hamlet
I’ve got several things to say about ECT, from both personal and professional experience. I’ll separate the two into separate posts.
First, just a brief note about myself. I’m a journalist who has specialized in medical/science writing (even before I was shocked myself), and I am a member of the Federal Task Force on Electroconvulsive Therapy.
I have also done several independent research studies on the topic of ECT, some of which has been cited in US Government documents (the recent CMHS Task Force Report) and in Australian reports.
I was given ECT in 1994.
My family was told that it would be unilateral (one side of the brain), memory loss was simply propoganda from anti psych groups and didn’t exist, and that it would cure my depression.
I was coerced into it by my psychiatrist.
I was not given unilateral, but bilateral, and have since learned that although unilateral is talked about quite a lot (it doesn’t have as severe memory loss/cognitive disturbance), bilateral is what’s used. Psychiatrists know that in severe depression, unilateral isn’t very effective (some studies put it at 16 percent effectiveness).
I lost two entire years of my life. There is no possible way that it was NOT a result of the ECT. I had the memories before the treatment, and afterwards, they are gone. I’m still waiting, but they haven’t come back.
I also have some cognitive damage, mostly the math side of my brain.
And, the ECT had no effect on my depression.
Okay, GermBoy is now thinking, well, we all know there’s a horror story for every treatment. Unfortunately, with ECT, there are many thousands of horror stories. I get about 50 emails a day from people who have lost memories, or they have a loved one who doesn’t remember their name and cannot function anymore.
And in my research, I’ve spoken to thousands who have been damaged by this treatment.
I could deal with it if I was a freak incident. These truly do happen in medicine. But this kind of memory loss and cognitive damage is not a freak occurence. It happens with regularity, and the patients are then poo poo’ed and told to get over it, that they’re mistaken or lying. That compounds their feelings of victimization, of having been horribly deceived.
Talk to any survivor of brain trauma, such as a car accident, and you will find striking similarities among them, and ECT survivors.
GermBoy asked:
>>COncerning the 2 “failures” outlined above, what other meds were, or are, the librarian and pianist on? What is their psychiatric disease? Are they currently in therapy? The questions abound.<<
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your intent, but it certainly seems that you’re indicating the two cases cited were freak incidents.
They are not.
I talk to people like this everyday.
From Germ Boy:
>>>As a healthcare provider (ghastly euphemism) I’ve assisted in administering
Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT) to at least 60 patients in the past ten years. Probably 600 episodes.<<<
One of the things I’ve come across over and over in my research is this very thing. You administer the ECT, and the person is doing better.
Of these 60 patients, how many have you talked to, say, 6 weeks down the road? 6 months? A year?
One of my theories on why psychiatrists (and other health care workers who participate in administering ECT) are so convinced that ECT is a miracle cure and there are no bad effects is that they see the patient during the hospital stay, as they receive treatments.
The patient is then released…a number of patients relapse, or are angry that they’ve lost memory, and they find a new doctor. The doctor who performed the ECT actually in many cases DOES NOT KNOW that s/he’s damaged someone.
GermBoy, can you cite any study that shows long-term benefit of ECT? There are none. No study can show any benefit beyond a few weeks. ECT may provide temporary relief from severe depression, but at what cost? Is two years of one’s life worth four weeks of euphoria?
Those who suggest that ECT works by way of head injury have pretty good evidence from this particular set of effects…a series of treatment, followed by euphoria and confusion…then in a few weeks, back to depression once again…minus some memories.
Someone wrote:
>>>In contrast, response to ECT is very rapid, taking 7-14 days to produce effects. Moreover, those effects are even in patients who are very unresponsive to drug therapy.<<<
Again, the rapid response is usually followed by a rapid relapse. And one of the predictors of a poor response to ECT is a poor response to drug therapy. Yet those very patients are the ones pressured into ECT, even though studies are beginning to show that if drugs don’t work, ECT is likely not to work as well.
>>
There is no doubt that ECS can produce memory problems in about 5-10% of patients. However, permanent damage is rare - less than 1%.<<
Only a few states in the United States require any kind of record keeping with regards to ECT. California is one of those few, and if you look at California stats (kept by their Dept. of Mental Health), you’ll see that the above statistics are total hogwash.
>>>And by the way, many of the horror stories that proliferate are either of the “urban legend” type or assume that the long term damage was produced by ECT (rather than the
psychiatric disease itself, by the anesthesia used or by other drugs the patient is/was taking.<<<
The horror stories are not urban legend, and I am horribly offended that you would chalk up people’s disastrous experiences to a joke.
But it’s a lot nicer to just say they’re making it up, or they’re confused…it was really the disease that caused the memory loss.
Shame on you…you invalidate the lives of so many people.
Juli,
I don’t think that ECT is necessarily touted as a long-term solution for depression. Meds (SSRIs, MAOI, etc.) are long term solutions, but ONLY because they are must continually administered. Stop the meds (not advisable) and the effect goes away, sometimes precipitously. ECT has some similarities in that it’s effect DOES diminish after the treatment. Repeat treatments are an expected part of the therapy. Anyone who was told “One zap and you’re better” was lied to. That sucks but it is a different issue.
I have had contact with most of the patients that I knew from their ECT experience. Some have said “never again” others say “it gave my life back” and another segment feels equivocal “Take it or leave it”. Truthfully, most fall into the take-it-or-leave-it group. So, what should I do? (BTW I no longer am involved in the treatments; no dilemma just different job).
It clearly helps some and very likely hurts others. Is it my duty to disallow IT? Should there be state sanctions against it? Welcome to the world of tough questions w/ murky answers. Dialogue like ours is good as long as the flame level warms but doesn’t singe. To close, I take every persons complaints and problems as real. To minimize anyone’s experience is anathema to me. I’ve found it difficult at times, but I don’t expect to be canonized anytime soon.
GermBoy
I find it “unusual” and quite frankly unbelievable that you had contact with most of the patients that you knew who you assisted administering ECT to. Generally when people have ECT, they don’t go back to who admiinstered the ECT a year or two later and disucss their memory loss, cognitive impairments, and sometimes (as in my case) back problems from a fracture of a thrasic vertebra or jaw.)
Nor are there "look back clauses " in any of the 4 or 5 dstates that have any sort of laws regarding ECT. The state of Texas has had a reporting law for 5 and a half years, requiring reporting of deaths and has brought to light the fact that approximately 1 out of every 200 persons who receive ECT are dead within 14 days of their “therapy.”
The state of Illinois is the only other state requiring reporting of deaths within 14 days of ECT, however, since this law was passed just over a year ago, I have no stats from Illinois.
California has reported permanent memory loss in alarmingly high numbers as a compolication (not a side effect) of ECT.
I don’t believe anyone has implied that you should “dissalow it” (ECT) nor do you have the authirity to do so on a state or national leve.
I feel any responsible “health care provider” or professional would support and encourage state legislatures to at least pass reporting laws, requiring reporting of deaths, complications, and also having a look back clause questioning patients RE memory loss and cognitive impairments at 6 months and year after ECT.
Instead (and I have been present in a state legislature to see this myself) health care providers/professionals, members of the APA, are opposed to such laws.
To say that ECT “hurts” some persons is a gross understatement. To say it disables and brain damages them (and kills others)more accurate. Damaging the brain, particularly the temporal and frontal lobes, erasing years of memory and causing a person to lose his profession, often his family, and his very identity of who he was as a person is not what I consider simply a “hurt”…I consider ECT evil, particularly because it is done under the guise of “help.”
I “hurt” my foot last week, and a number of years ago my ankle (fracture), burned myself when a cooffee pot exploded. These “hurts” all have either healed or left a manaageable after effect.
ECT did no simply “hurt” me. It destroyed who I was, and took the mother of my children.
ECT damaged my brain, and EEG’s verify this.
A couple of months ago a friend of my adult son phoned to say his grandmother was in a psychiatric hospital. My son told his friend “I met your grandma…shes’ a nice lady…if they are going to give her shock treatments, do the kind, the merciful thing…get a 45 and blow her brains out.”
That is the perspective of an adult child of a mother who had ECT nearly 16 years ago.
Barb,
I’ll not dispute nor minimize anything you bring up.
I HAVE had contact w/ a great many of the previous ECT recipients because of the peculiarities of the chronic psych units in this hospital. I stand by my observations.
Please, don’t tell me this is resonable response in your eyes. If so then your willingness to polarize your opinion makes discussion difficult.
To one and all,
I had decided to leave this thread but thought that some of the subsequent messages were very interesting. I was particularly interested in the argument by several people that ECT has a very high death and injury rate. Since my last intensive look at the ECT literature was about 5 years ago, I decided to check the recent publications.
What I noticed was that almost all of the published material on the damage attributed to ECS was anecdotal literature – that is, case reports. Case reports have been and are the natural stimuli for scientifically rigorous studies of an hypothesis. However, in any area of medicine, case reports cannot be used for generalizing because they depend on studies of a single individual’s response.
Those studies that included a large group of people studied for at least 6 months each found survival rates after ECT were actually higher at follow-up than patients who received only antidepressant drug treatment (Philibert, RA et al, J. Clin. Psychiatry 56:390, 1995). In fact, the Texas retrospective study that I found (Reid, WH et al. J. Clin Psychiatry 59:8, 1998) indicated a mortality rate of 8 in 2583 patients. Of these, 5 of 8 were clearly unrelated to ECT itself (3 accidents, 2 fatal anesthetic reactions).
The most thorough study that I found of the effects of ECT on brain structure (Devanand, DP et al, Am. J. Psychiatry 151:957, 1994) concluded that they observed no evidence of ECT-induced brain damage in the sample of patients they examined.
There is also evidence that pre-ECT cognitive state is a strong predictor of post-ECT retrograde amnesia (Sobin, C et al., Am. J. Psychiatry 152:995, 1995). That is, some (certainly not all) of the severe memory problems after ECT may be due as much to underlying organic brain disease as to the ECT itself. As far as other, non-memory-based cognitive effects, Calev et al (Calev, A et al., Br. J. Clin. Psychology 34:505, 1995) found that the rate following ECT did not exceed the rate of cognitive impairment among depressed patients.
Please understand, I do not support uninformed or coerced ECT treatment for even marginally competent people. I also do not (for that matter could not) deny that there are people for whom memory and cognitive function after ECT is much, much worse that before ECT.
I simply say that the data doesn’t support the idea that ECT kills or damages people any more often than drug treatments or in fact the underlying diseases themselves.
I wholeheartedly agree that ANYONE asked to agree to ANY major medical treatment - especially one that requires anesthesia (as Germ Boy and others indicate, the evidence for risk due to anesthesia is quite clear) - should thoroughly understand the possible risks and benefits. In fact, I strongly urge anyone for whom such a treatment is recommended to seek a second or third opinion before agreeing to be treated.
There is no doubt that the reason for the effectiveness of ECT in relieving depression is unknown. However, the same could be said for opiate analgesics until about 1975. These drugs have been used since before Hippocrates and the dangerous effects (depressed respiration, dependence, coma) were common side effects and complications. They were used without understanding the biological basis for their effects for over 4000 years for only one reason. People didn’t have any better means of relieving pain. So they ate the poppy and accepted the risks.
The same is true for the treatment of depression. In spite of the hype from the pharmaceutical industry we do not, in fact, know why people get depressed or how to fix it. All we know is that every so often, we stumble on some drugs or treatments like ECT relieve depression more times than they don’t. That’s not very comforting for anyone - especially the patients - but that is the way things stand.
Germboy quotes Barb:
>>quote: A couple of months ago a friend of my adult son phoned to say his grandmother was in a psychiatric hospital. My son told his friend "I met your grandma…shes’ a nice lady…if they are going to give her shock treatments, do the kind, the merciful thing…get a 45 and blow her brains out.<<
and Germboy writes:
“Please, don’t tell me this is resonable response in your eyes. If so then your willingness to polarize your opinion makes discussion difficult.”
Germ, why is this not a reasonable response? These are words from the heart of a child who has seen what ECT did to his mother. Would it be better to censor a child’s feelings and pretend they do not exist?
Is this how your clinic works, telling people to not express their honest feelings because it’s not ‘reasonable discussion?’
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I know how I feel about ECT. I was raped a few years ago in a violent manner.
The honest truth is that I would rather be raped again as opposed to more ECT, as hideous as the rape was to me.
Maybe that’s not reasonable either, but it’s also from the heart.
llama:
>>>I was particularly interested in the argument by several people that ECT has a very high death and injury rate. Since my last intensive look at the ECT literature was about 5 years ago, I decided to check the recent publications.
What I noticed was that almost all of the published material on the damage
attributed to ECS was anecdotal literature – that is, case reports.<<<
You need to read the original stats from Texas, not studies in journals. Richard Abrams is not about to report in one of the journals on Texas statistics that show such a high death rate.
In fact, I tell people to turn to the statistics kept by the state departments of mental health if they’re looking for serious data. When you delve into so many of the journal studies, you’ll find that the population studied was 8 people or a similar ridiculous amount.
It just blows my mind that the APA and other lobbying groups work so hard to keep the other 45 states from gathering any stats on ECT. Actually, I guess it doesn’t, because the stats really tell the story. There’s no Max Fink making up numbers that are carried into national reports. (He has admitted that his 1 in 200 stat concerning memory loss was a figment of his imagination, yet this statistic is continually quoted as an official number.) You get raw data, and it’s worth delving into. For example, the California stats show a number forty times higher than Max’s “official” 1 in 200 number from his head.
llama:
>>>The most thorough study that I found of the effects of ECT on brain structure
(Devanand, DP et al, Am. J. Psychiatry 151:957, 1994) concluded that they observed no evidence of ECT-induced brain damage in the sample of patients they examined.<<<
This study was a massive review of the literature, not the authors actually looking at autopsied brains or scans. There are studies that dispute this, and say the opposite.
While I am not criticizing the idea of a meta study, I personally think that a group of psychiatrists reviewing the literature is hardly the final word. Psychiatrists simply do not have the same understanding of the brain that neurologists have. They don’t have an understanding of how memory works that a neurobiologist might have. They have a better understanding of how medications affect patients, and how many cool purple Zyprexa coffee cups you can fit on a desk, but honestly, their training in brain pathology is not in the same league. (This is not an attempt to smear psychiatry, just an acknowledgement of what most MDs accept as fact.)
Neurologists who specialize in brain pathology tend to be more outspoken about ECT. They are the ones who deal daily in brain traumas. The late Sydney Samant said it most eloquently:
Sydney Samant, M.D., Clinical Psychiatry News, March 1983:
(Copyrighted quote removed - Jill)
A study similar to the one you quoted also reviewed the available literature and came to a different conclusion:
(Donald I. Templer and David M. Veleber
Clinical Neuropsychology (1982) 4(2): 62-66)
(copyrighted info. removed - Jill)
I would also recommend reading the work of Dr. Peter Sterling, a neurobiologist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. His stuff is just too massive to quote here, but he is adamant that ECT not only causes permanent and extensive memory loss more often than is reported, he remains convinced that it does cause trauma to the brain. Additionally, he has studied the complexities of memory studies, and how little ECT researchers actually know about memory. (He isn’t the first to point this out.)
llama:
>>>There is also evidence that pre-ECT cognitive state is a strong predictor of
post-ECT retrograde amnesia (Sobin, C et al., Am. J. Psychiatry 152:995,
1995). That is, some (certainly not all) of the severe memory problems after
ECT may be due as much to underlying organic brain disease as to the ECT
itself. As far as other, non-memory-based cognitive effects, Calev et al (Calev,
A et al., Br. J. Clin. Psychology 34:505, 1995) found that the rate following ECT
did not exceed the rate of cognitive impairment among depressed patients.<<<
I haven’t read this study, and will definitely read it. However, I find it interesting that this is a common claim, that the underlying disease is responsible for the memory loss, not the ECT. Why is it then, that so many people remember names, places and events up to the point of ECT, yet after completing the series, huge chunks of time are erased?
Mighty odd coincidences. (And reread the quote from Templer above; it addresses this)
In my case, I could remember a phone number I dialed once for years to come before ECT. My memory was never a problem. After ECT, two years are completely gone, as if they never existed. Those who know me know this story well - I had two friends who died in a tragic plane disaster.
I now have absolutely no memory of having ever known them, despite visits with their orphaned child, visits to their grave on Long Island, despite pouring over photo albums of past good times.
In my mind they do not exist.
If that’s not one of the results of ECT, I’ll break into a Riverdance and eat my hat.
>>>Please understand, I do not support uninformed or coerced ECT treatment for
even marginally competent people.<<<
But what would your version of informed consent say? That ECT has very small risk of slight, temporary memory loss? Or that there’s a decent chance you could lose a chunk of your life…for FOUR WEEKS OF RELIEF.
And the California stats show that the rate (in Cali) of ECT performed FORCED ECT (not coerced, but forced, against one’s will) is three percent. That sounds so small, doesn’t it? But imagine California stats are reflective of national stats (which I do not believe they are on this issue; California has traditionally had more stringent regulations than the other states).
Annual estimates (imagine a system that cannot provide real numbers because there is no federal mandated reporting!) run between 100,000 to 200,000 people having ECT in the US each year. If three percent of those are against their will, that’s 3,000 to 6,000 people every year being forced into ECT. My guess is the number is higher…and this doesn’t even reflect the numbers who are coerced, as I was, but gave their consent under threats.
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]
GermBoy
Least you are concerned that my friends’ Granny had her brains blown out by a 45, rest assured, she didnt have ECT, last I heard, nor was she shot in the head by a bullet.
I spoke with a realtive of this elderly woman on the phone and told him that should ECT be pushed against the grandmother’s will, to contact me immediately as I had a contact for help through the agency that had successfully prevented court ordered ECT in 3 elderly women in the past few years in this state. All three elderly women were being taken to court to have ECT against their will, and of course, it was to “save” their lives. All three were still alive last I heard.
This past week I spoke to 2 professional writers ( who are working and not deisabled by ECT) and asked their opinions of using the statement made by my son in my writings on ECT, and both assured me that the statement would be interpreted as an indication that the devatating effects of shock were worse than death. On this I certainly agree. I have asked several shock surviovrs recently re that statement, and was told “that’s for sure” …and “that is true”.
No, I don’t feel it is a reasonable thing to do to blow the brains out of an elderly woman with a 45, but I also do not believe it is resonable to damage their brains with up to 150 volts (or more)…yes, I said volts of electricity sent numerous times through both sides of their brains.
Over the last 15 years I’ve spoken to likely 200 shock survivors, and numerous realtives of persons who have had ECT (including persons whose relatives suicided after stating that the effects of the ECT or the “treatment” or “therapy” had driven them to suicide) Persons who have had “enough” shock…enough to disable them, rob them of years of precious memories, their professions, their family ties, their talents, and have been left fumbling about all day, every day, looking for things, writing notes to themselves on their hands (and then forgetting they wrote the notes)…etc…tend to view that statement from a different light, especially a different light than those who have promoted and or adminitered this treatment.
Within the last 3 or 4 hours I happened to see a TV show…a couple from Chicago had accompanied a group of young people to Poland, visiting the sties of former camps for the Jews. The woman stated examples of people who “blew their brains out”…rather than face what was ahead. The reactions of the large group of young people were not “That was not reasonable/rational” etc etc. Of course, I doubt any of those young people were health care providers or professions, so perhaps they did not see the statement in the proper perspective.
Thank you Juli for attempting to clarify what I stated in that post. You do not need to explain to me that you feel being violently raped is something you would want again for yourself or anyone else. I understand what you are attempting to convey. (Least it be interprested that you are reccomending rape as an alternative to ECT!)
I have spoken at length, in the past, to a woman who was raped by 2 men at knifepoint. She had ECT a year later. She too stated that the effects of the ECT were far more traumatic than the rape, and if she no choice but to have a “repeat” of one the two, she’d pick the rape by knife point.
ECT rapes the mind, body and spirit…the very core, the soul of the person. It is a violation, and often a mutilation, of what God created, in the truest sense of the word.
Barb & Juli,
Thanks for your postings, sharing your experiences, and clarification of Granni-cide :). That ECT is implicated in your pain causes me to re-think some things. I’ve never had a vested interest in ECT as a treatment and would not choose it for myself. I cannot dismiss the people who have benefitted by it any more than I can dismiss your painful experiences.
And one last clarification:I would not ever censor a child’s feeling to suit my comfort.My remarks concerned the act of killing another person. I understand your point. Chilling, nonetheless.