ECT- Living Better Electrically

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

LLAMA

There you go again… THE DATA DOES SUPPORT THE FACT THAT ECT KILLS. KILLS AT SUCH A FREQUENCY AS TO INVALIDATE IT AS A VIABLE TREATMENT… I REFER YOU ONCE MORE TO THE LATEST BENBOW STUDY. YOU PEOPLE (SHOCK SUPPORTERS) SUFFER FROM SELECTIVE BLINDNESS WHEN REVIEWING THE LITERATURE.

Of course I and others on this board have the dubious ‘‘advantage’’ of KNOWING just how it wrecks lives. If we can arrange it, will you have 10 ‘‘treatments’’ to prove your faith in the process?

Incidently, I hope you have now sorted your own ‘‘confused’’ state of mind and reassured yourself that that the figures I gave previously are in fact correct…? That 25% of shrinks in that survey had wittnessed shock kill or cause serious medical consequences?

42

My mother had ECT in the early 60’s. I knew she was going to a mental institution but I thought they would be talking to her, you know, psychotherapy. Found out only later they gave her I-don’t-know-how-many ECTs. When she got back home, she didn’t know me. She had to re-learn everything, including how to cook. I wasn’t very sympathetic, I’m afraid. She had been a difficult person before ECT, and I still had some resentments. She wasn’t any less difficult afterwards, just more wary. “I’d better behave or they’ll do that to me!” Now that I know more about ECT, I am horrified about what they did to her. Talk about informed consent: nobody, even my father and brother who signed for treatment, were “informed” about what ECT could really do.

43

Pat
As a shock survivor, former teacher and RN who is disabled by the verified damage that ECT did to my brain during out pt ECT in 1983, I can tell you that “informed consent” for ECT doesn’t exist (by law) except for the state of Texas. Texas requires that persons undergoing ECT be informed of the possiblity of permanent memory loss and brain damage, development of spontaneous seizures (i.e epilepsy). The consent is required before each treatment.
I’ve spoken with likely over 200 shock sruvivors over the last 15 years, and whether they had ECT in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s or 90’s, none were informed of the possibility or more accurately the probability, of permanent memory loss and cognitive impairments and on going daily short term memory problems they could/or likely would acquire during their “therapy.”
Though Cecil Adams article/answer of March 19 seemed to convey that the intent of ECT in its early days was the production of a seizure, early shock experts were quite open in stating that the “aim” of ECT was to produce brain damage.
In 1941 prominent US psychiatrist Walter Freeman stated:
“All of the above-mentioned methods (i.e. various forms of shock and drug treatments are damaging to the brain, but for the most part, the damage is either slight or temporary. The apparanet paradox develops, however, that the greater the damamge, the more likely the remission of psychotic symptoms…It has been said that if we don’t think correctly, it is because we haven’t “brains enough.” Maybe it will be shown that a mentally ill patient can think more clearly and more consturctively with less brain in actual operation.”
In 1948 US psychiatrist Paul Hock stated “This brings us for a mement to a discussion of the brain damage produced by electroshock…Is a certain amount of brain damage not necessary in this type of treatment? Frontal lobotomy indicates that improvement takes place by a definite damage of certain parts of the brain.”
When shock treatment was introduced (1938) and during its first big era of popularity (the 1940’s) many prominant psychiatrists openly admitted it “worked” by damaging the brain. Euphoria is a known side effect of some types of brain injury.
Nor is the idea that a grand mal seizure is somehow the goal or the method of lifting depression. In the 1990’s shock doctor authorities are open about stating that current administered is suprthreshold, generally two and half to 3 times the amount needed to induce a grand mal seizure.
My records show between 120 and 150 volts of current applied to both sides of my brain.
Some persons say that now shock is “all different”…it isn’t like it used to be." By that they mean not like Jack in One Flew Over… By the mid to late 1950’s muscle relaxants ( anectane, a form of curarae) and short acting general anesthetics (like Brevitol) were already being widely used, and were pretty “standard” by the 1960’s.
This made ECT less unpleasant to watch. It it no way changed the amount of damage being done to the brain by the electricity passing through the frontal and temporal lobes. For some reason, it seems “OK” if they do this to the patient when they are “asleep”…as if the “worst part” was the treatment itself. Traumatic as ECT was without general anesthetic, I assure you, the procedure itself was not as truamatic as the resultant , generally permanent memory and cognitive impairments the person is faced with often for the rest of his life.

44

Barb wrote:

>>>This made ECT less unpleasant to watch. It it no way changed the amount of damage being done to the brain by the electricity passing through the frontal and temporal lobes. For some reason, it seems “OK” if they do this
to the patient when they are “asleep”…as if the “worst part” was the treatment itself. Traumatic as ECT was without general anesthetic, I assure you, the procedure itself was not as truamatic as the resultant , generally permanent memory and cognitive impairments the person is faced with often for the rest of his life.<<<

One of the things that aggravates me greatly is the fact that when arguing that ECT is safe, people start pulling out quotes from publicity brochures.

“Today’s ECT isn’t like the ECT of Cuckoo’s Nest.”

“They use less electricity.”

“It’s very precise”

The problem is that those brochures and films (which are the very aids used in providing “informed” consent) contain blatant lies. They’ve been repeated for so many years that now these lies are fact and nobody bothers to check original data to confirm anything.

Barb, you’re absolutely right…today’s ECT is kinder and gentler ONLY because it’s sanitized for viewing. It’s a lot easier to watch a patient’s toes wiggle than a patient who is flopping around on a table breaking bones.

Many people seem to believe that means that very little is going on within the body because only a toe is wiggling. That body would still be flippping around, but is paralyzed. The effects on the brain are no different.

And this crock about less electricity? In the olden days they used perhaps one-tenth of a second of juice.

Today, the average is two full seconds. And Richard Abrams recommends five seconds in many cases. But of course that’s not in the brochure…that’s only in the book that is intended only for ECT practitioners.

And believe me, shock docs just out and out lie about it when pressed…Charles Kellner, one of the leading shock docs, was caught on tape in this very lie. (see the Hall of Shame at www.ect.org) He said it’s not true that today’s ECT uses 1-2 seconds!!!

Another thing that dismays me is the increasing pressure to use ECT. It’s driven by money, and psychiatrists are truly feeling the effects of managed care. Incomes are being cut, and they are scrambling for ways to maintain the lifestyles they have.

Psychiatric Times recommended one way to boost income was take a week-long course in ECT and add that to your practice. They said that a doctor could double his income.

If that doesn’t lead to $$$-driven ECT, I don’t know what does.

45

To Cecil, Llama Boy, all you out there who seem to be enarmoured of ECT.It has taken me days to print out and read your posts. It takes me that long to read anything since ECT. ABithell was right, the bits you want to pick up on are only the ones that suit your arguments. Well unfortunately, I don’t have that choice. These days I can’t quote figures and details, all I can do is tell you what I am like since ECT.

I gave my consent, believed what the Doctor told me. Almost word for word the same as you often quote. The usual LIES that we are told, about, no damage, no lasting side effects. Happy Days will be here again.

Well let me tell you, it sure does do damage and the effect are permenant.

I had my sessions of ECT in 1994 - 95.
I had been a taxi driver for more than 20 years, knew the city like the back of my hand, after the third, fourth, fifth session. I can’t remember which now, anyway I was driving to an appointment and all of a sudden I knew where I was and where I wanted to be, but not how to get there. From there it my life went down hill like a rocket.
I had been an independant, working woman, who in my spare time wrote poetry, short tories, read books. enjoyed a full social life.

Now I have the cognative ability of a six year old. This is verified by medical tests done since 1995. I can’t read properly, I can only write using a computer because I can’t hold a pen any more. Also it can correct my many spelling mistakes. I can start to write a word or a sentence and forget what I was going to write. I have to have a Guardian to manage my bank account because I look at figures and they mean nothing to me. Not even to do simple adding up.

Last month the gas boiler went out. I lit a match and stuck my hand with the match in it it inside the boiler to try to relight it… Even my 9 year old Grandson would have had the ability to know that was dangerous. I didn’t, it nearly took the ends of my fingers off.

I can’t cook, I forget I have pans on the stove or food in the oven. Only last week I went to do some toast, forgot I’d lit the gas. Sometime later when my carer checked in on me the downstairs was thick with black smoke. If he hadn’t come I could have burnt myself to death.

I’ve crashed my computer more times than I’ve had hot dinners because I forget which is the right button or instruction to click.

I can’t fill forms in, the questions confuse me if I have to write an answer instead of tick a yes or no.

Am I boring you yet?

Do you know the worst part? I am intelligent I understand exactly what has and is happening to me. Can you even imagin the frustration this causes. When I want to do something that before ECT I would have done automatically. Now I can’t remember what to do, never mind how to it.

I can’t tell left from right, it takes me minutes to work out that I write with my right hand, so that way or side must be right.

You carry on quoting your facts and figures, but think on this…

Never mind how many people like Barb and ABithell and all the many other people who try to convince you ECT is BAD. If we deter one person from having ECT we will have helped someone not to end up as we are. What about the many you help to decide to “risk” it. Through your inabillity to see what’s hitting you the face, you could be condeming someone to end up as I am. ECT is not a therapy or a help. It is a thing which belongs in the age of the Inquisition, It’s barbaric and as a friend of mine says “A rape of the soul.” Don’t any of you have a concience.

It’s all well and good advocating something you’ve not even tried… not risked.

I don’t know how long it’s taken you to read my post or even if your still reading it, but if you are, it might interest you to know it’s taken me over five hours to put these words together and write.

I personally will never give up the fight to see ECT abolished. I didn’t learn about ECT and it’s effects from books, surveys or quotes. My knowledge comes from living with the damage of ECT.
I hope you never have to live this way. Although I sometimes think you deserve to when I read the rubbish you write about a subject you’ve only read about or even helped administer.

46

Some years back I read that people who had had head trauma (such as from an auto accident) had a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. Someone made a connection to ECT and wondered if people who had brain damage from ECT were also more likely to get Alzheimer’s disease. I wonder about this because my mother, who had ECT, developed A’s disease twenty years later, and died from it about ten after that.The onset of A’s disease is so gradual, you can’t really tell when someone starts to get it. Does anyone know any research about this?

Pat Stoll

47

As with Chris, this is now my 4th or 5th try at writing an answer to a post, and I began this task 4 and half hours ago…each time, trying to “get to the point” and then trying again and again because I get off the track. This is my last shot, on this one.

Juli

Holy Moses! You mean this is for real a one week course on ECT? I’m really impressed!!! And here I thought that the standards for ECT were the same as years ago!
Who says that efforts aren’t being made to improve “standards”???

I have before me here a flyer from 1991 for a one day certificate course in ECT.

"This how-to-do-it course teaches the skills for giving ECT accoring to the APA’s new “Reccomendations for Treatment, Training and Privileging.”
“Following didactic sessions in the morning and early afternoon…including a 45 minute Q&A period with a panel of course faculty…course attendees assemble into small preceptor-led afternoon groups for hands on demonstration of a reccomended treatment sequence, using patient mannequins and the latest ECT devices.”

Yes, they practice on a mannequin, take the test and golly gee…since Abrams flyer on his Thymatron states “ECT WITHOUT MEMORY LOSS” and since it is just so safe, howz come the docs just don’t use themselves for the “practicum” and “hands on demonstration” (Oops…there I go again, now just why would the psychiatrists do this to themselves? They assuredly aren’t mentally ill…sorry, …I forgot…)

Flyer continues:
“Upon completing the course and passing a written examiniation, each registrant will receive a certificate documenting that he has completed the course and demonstrated knowledge of the use and procedures of electroconvulsive therapyy. In addition, all attendees earn 9 hours of category 1 CME credit.”

I wondered about that …the 9 hours of CME credit, and finally figured out, if they count an hour of CME credit for each hour of the “The Technique of ECT”, then seems they are giving them CME credit for the half hour coffee and pastry buffet, the 45 minute sit down (yes, sit down) luncheon and the half hour of “refreshments” in the afternoon. Fantastic way to earn CME credit…by eating .
Course was offered by none other than…Dr Richard Abrams, who holds the patent on, manufactures and sells direct the Thymatron, that wondrous machine where the doctor simply sets the dial to the patinet’ss age and it automatically delivers the right ammount of current (Amazing , huh,??) Abrams was also (for years) an expert witness coming against persons trying to sue for ECT damages,

I had many other comments Juli, to your last post, and decided it best to not make this post 10,000 words.I spent the previous 5 hours going over and over and trying to “get to the point”…this is my “best shot”…

Theres’ a bumper sticker that says “Of all the things I ever lost, I miss my mind the most.” To that I say there is a distict difference between losing something, and having it taken.

48

Pat
From what I know about A’s Disease, they used to say the only way to truly diagnose it was on autopsy, when they found tangling substances in the brain.
RE the relationship between Alzsheimers and head injury I’ve certainly heard.

I was diagnosed as “dementia” “Organic Brain Syndrome” at age 41, less than a year after I had 13 out pt ECT. Less than a year prior to the ECT I had graduated with honors as an RN at age 40.

You may want to read “ECT As A Head Injury” at www.ect.org. You will also find much info, at http://members.aol.com/wmacdo4301

We tend to think of someone with Alzheimers as being confused, getting lost, starting fires when trying to cook, not recognizing people they’d known well for many years, and not knowning how to perform simple tasks that they prior could do without thinking, being overly emotional, easily upset when they cant remember things etc, and seeming to have a “very good memory” of things that happened long long ago but sparse memory of mroe recent events in time. All these symptoms are indicative of damage to the brain, particularly the frontal and temporal lobes. All these symptoms I experienced and continue to experience, due to ECT. Same goes for many many shock survivors.
With ECT persons are told "it will all come back…in a few weeks…in a few months…(though they were first told it wouldnt happen at all)…and when it doesnt come back, they are told these are simply symtpoms of depression.
Your mother did learn what could happen if she made too many “waves”…so do most shock survivors, as far as going back and trying to tell the doctors about their damages due to shock.

Is the damage from ECT progressive? Yes, in many cases it is…it gets worse as time goes on. This also happens with certain head injuries. The stress of attempting to “operate” on an impaired brain takes it’s toll.

Doctors arent likely to acknowledge anytime soon that ECT leads to “Alzsheimers”.

A few months ago when a friend was hospitalized with bleeding into the brain (a stroke) a doctor came into the room and asked if she had ever had seizrues. Later I told the doctor “She had ECT years ago” and he said “That wasnt what he meant”. I responded…“Oh, if a doctor gives them (seizures) to you, then it doesnt count?” He had no response, but a rather quizacle look on his face. I didnt push it further by saying that the bleeding into the brain happend to be at the exact location of placement of one of the electrodes in ECT, because, I’m sure that was puerly “co-incidental”.
The seizures given with ECT are not the same as a spontaneuous grand mal seizure. Even in the 1990’s docotors acknowledge they use commonly, 2 and half to 3 times the amt of current needed to invoke a grandmal. If the sizure were the “goal” of the “therapy” this would not be necessary.
I had a fracture of a thorasic vertebra and athe jaw during my “new and improved” ECT in 1983. I know a woman who had such a fracture with shock in the 90’s and a man who had a vertebral fracture in the 1980’s. During the 1940’s such fractures were common…not maybe 1% as the original article quoted…more like 20 to 40%.

How many people have you heard of who fractuered a vertebra during a spontaneous grand mal seizure? Then why would it happen during ECT?

ECT is an electrically induced brain injury. Some persons have less damage, but generally, (not always) the less ECT one has, the less damage one has. “Bilateral” seems to cause more damage than “Unilateral”…and that seems understandable to me.

The old shock certainly wasnt less damaging than the new shock, or vice versa.

When God said “Let there be light”, I sincerely doubt he meant 150 volts through both sides of the brain.

Believe it or not, this is a fact, ECT is prescribed for the depression of A’ls Disease, and for persons who are depressed following a stroke and or traumatic brain injury from car accidents etc.

Chris’ post describes not just an “occasional bad day”…but rather how it is all day, every day for those of us attempting to live with the effects of ECT. For me, it is now nearly 16 years.

49

Barb wrote:

>>>I have before me here a flyer from 1991 for a one day certificate course in ECT.
"This how-to-do-it course teaches the skills for giving ECT accoring to the APA’s new “Reccomendations for Treatment, Training and Privileging.” “Following didactic sessions in the morning and early afternoon…including a
45 minute Q&A period with a panel of course faculty…course attendees assemble into small preceptor-led afternoon groups for hands on
demonstration of a reccomended treatment sequence, using patient mannequins and the latest ECT devices.”<<<

Good lord. The sad thing is that patients don’t have a clue that the majority of docs are out performing ECT after a day’s review plus donuts.

I’m sure that had Psych Times had the brochure in front of them while writing that article, they would have promoted it: Take a one-day course, DOUBLE YOUR INCOME. Includes donuts!!!

The whole article was written for psychiatrists who are facing financial hard times due to managed care. I don’t begrudge anyone trying to make a living, whether it’s 20,000 a year or 2 million a year. I do condemn learning a “technique” for no other reason than to double your income. Financial pressure leads to these doctors pushing for something that is going to make them money.

They’ll talk all nice nice about how you need ECT, how it will help your depression and all that nasty stuff you heard about it is lies. The bottom line for them is $$$. There’s money to be made in ECT, from every side.

Even Abrams promotes his Thymatron every chance he gets. In his book (Electroconvulsive Therapy, Oxford University Press), considered the bible for shock docs, he very cleverly promotes it over other shock machines by continually talking about features that you need. Of course the Thymatron is the only machine with these great features.

His journal articles do the same, although sometimes he actually mentions the Thymatron by name. Never do the journals mention that he owns the company.

What other field in medicine tolerates this? If the world’s leading infectious disease specialist continually promoted Zithromax as the one antibiotic over any others, wouldn’t collegues become a little suspicious when it turned out he owned Pfizer?

To my knowledge, the only time it’s ever come up was when a journal article promoted Somatics’ (Abrams’ company) mouth guard, which was horribly expensive. A doctor wrote in to say you could use a sports mouth guard from a sports store for much cheaper. Of course Abrams hit the roof.

ECT is his gravy train, and IMO, it’s the gravy train of the future for psychiatrists. Insurance and Medicare pay 100 percent.

It’s going to be revolting to watch the ECT rates go up over the years, but it’s going to happen.
----- Juli

50

To Llamafresh — with reference to your statement about the Devanand Report about ECT and brain structure, I too have that Report. It is called “Does ECT Alter Brain Structure” and it a review of the literature not a sample of clients. Also, there were six authors of that report; one of whom “Harold A. Sackeim” has admitted publicly in the Washington Post (September 1996) that his research is partly funded by the shock-machine companies MECTA and Somatics. Below are a list of papers that state that it does do harm to the brain and does cause death. It all depends on who is doing the research – doctors who have a financial interest in ECT usually find that it is safe and effective while those without a financial interest usually find that it dangerous, it depends on who you want to believe. Anyway, here is the list:

BRAIN DAMAGE:
Marcheselli, et al ‘Sustained induction of prostaglandin endoperoxidase synthase-2 by seizures in hippocampus’ J Biol Chem 1996; 271: pages 24794-24799
This study showed that ECT causes an increase in the production of inflammatory proteins in brain cells.

Coffey, et al, ‘Brain Anatomic Effects of ECT’ Arch Gen Psych 1991; 48: pages 1013-1021
This study, conducted at Durham VA Hospital and Duke University Medical Center, looked at the MRI brain scans of 35 patients before and after receiving ECT. The study, conducted by C. Edward Coffey MD (a leading advocate of ECT), showed that 8 of the 35 patients (22%) were showing NEW brain changes after receiving ECT. One of those showing the brain changes suffered a stroke and two were showing abnormal neurological signs within six months of receiving ECT.

Andreasen, et al ‘MRI of the Brain in Schizophrenia’ Arch Gen Psych 1990; 47: pages 35-41
Andreasen used MRI scans to demonstrate a strong correlation between the number of previous ECT treatments to enlarged ventricles (loss of brain tissue).

Figiel, Coffey, et al ‘Brain MRI findings in ECT-induced delirium’ J of Neuropsych and Clin Sci 1990; 2: pages 53-58
ECT-enthusiast Dr. Coffey and his associate Dr. Figiel found that 10 out of 87 (that’s 11% of) elderly patients getting ECT for depression remained delirious between ECT sessions for no discernible medical reason other than the ECT itself. The scans showed that 90% of these patients had lesions in the basal ganglia areas of the brain, and 90% also had white matter lesions.

Dolan, RJ, et al ‘The cerebral appearance in depressed subjects’ Psychol Med 1986; 16: pages 775-779
An English study which compared the brain CT scans of 101 depressed patients who had received ECT with the scans of 52 normal volunteers. The study found a significant relationship between ECT treatment and brain atrophy – ECT patients were twice as likely to have a measurable loss of brain tissue at the front and three times as likely to have a loss of brain tissue at the back of the brain. The study also showed that the brain abnormalities correlated only with ECT, and not with age, gender, severity of illness, previous history, etc.

Calloway, et al, ‘ECT and cerebral atrophy: a CT study’ Acta Psych Scand 1981; 64: pages 442-445
A CT brain scan study which showed that frontal lobe atrophy (brain shrinkage) was significantly more common in those who had received ECT.

Weinberger, et al, ‘Structural abnormalities in the cerebral cortex of chronic schizophrenic patients’ Arch Gen Psych 1979; 36: pages 935-939
Weinberger looked at the effects of ECT on the brains of schizophrenics by comparing brain CT scans of those who had ECT with schizophrenics who never received shock. He documented that cerebral atrophy (brain shrinkage) was significantly more common in those who had been shocked.

Cotman, et al ‘Electroshock effects on brain protein synthesis’ Science 1971; 178: pages 454-456
This report showed that ECT disrupts (protective) protein production by brain cells.

DEATH:
Don Gilbert, Commissioner, Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 1996
Recording of ECT deaths within 14 days of receiving ECT is mandatory in the state of Texas. 21 deaths were reported in the first 3 years of mandatory recording: 11 from heart attacks and strokes, six suicides, and 3 from respiratory problems.

O’Leary, D.A. & Lee, A.S., ‘Seven Year Prognosis in Depression: Mortality and Readmission Risk in the Nottingham ECT Cohort’ British Journal of Psychiatry 1996; 169: pages 423-429
This British study recorded the mortality and readmission rates of 118 ECT patients over a period of seven years. The results showed that the mortality rate amongst ECT was between two and four times the normal mortality rate, depending on age group. The report concluded that ECT patients had a higher long-term mortality rate and the readmission risk was also increased.

1993 Kroessler and Fogel, ‘Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major Depression in the Old’ Am J of Geriatric Psychiatry 1993; 1:1: pages 30-37
The survival rate of 65 elderly depressed patients was monitored by researchers at Brown University. The survival rates of those who had received ECT were 73%, 54.1% and 51.4% after 1, 2 and 3 years respectively. By contrast, the survival rates among depressed patients who had not received ECT were 96.4%, 90.5% and 75% after 1, 2 and 3 years.

1984 Babigian, H., et al ‘Epidemiologic Considerations in ECT’ Arch Gen Psych 1984; 41: pages 246-253
This large retrospective study (3,288 patients) showed that ECT patients had an increased death rate from all causes.

There are many more studies but I hope this at least proves that it is not just the patients who have found that ECT does harm. A lot of doctors have found the same thing.

Willi

51

A few comments on recent posts:

  1. I am not an “advocate” of ECT. Neither for that matter am I an advocate of coronary bypass surgery or for that matter, tonsillectomy. I am, however, an advocate of maintaining the availability of informed treatment options.

  2. Correlation is not causation – i.e. just because a death is reported some time after ECT treatment does not mean that ECT caused that death. To make that kind of statement, you’d need to compare ECT-treated patients to a group of similar age, sex, psychiatric diagnosis and general health. By way of example, the death rate among people who take low doses of aspirin each day is higher than average. This is not because aspirin is a health hazard but, because people who take an aspirin a day (as prescribed by their cardiologist) are likely to suffer from coronary artery disease - The disease is what increases the death rate, not the aspirin.

Similarly, ECT is prescribed for severely depressed people – the death rate from depression is much higher than average. Unless you compare the post-ECT death rates of similar groups of people (similar level of depression, age, health etc.) you can’t determine whether a higher-than-average death rate is due to ECT or the depression or even the physical health of the patients. The reports that have controlled for those factors do not find that ECT produces death. The reports mentioned by Willie and others do not appear to have controlled for those factors.

  1. Several people have argued that pro- or neutral reports on ECT are based on conflict of interest. ECT is one of the least profitable treatments for depression compared to drug therapy or psychotherapy. A much stronger conflict of interest argument can be made for some proponents of drug therapies such as the serotonin reuptake inhibitors. I’m quite sure that the pharmaceutical industry would profit greatly by demonstrating that Prozac or Paxil were both safer AND more effective than ECT. However, no such reports have appeared.

  2. Having said this, I completely agree with those who criticize witholding or minimizing information required to make an informed decision. That is why I recommend not only providing an accurate summary of the risks such as memory loss but, also that patients or their families seek at least one (preferably more) additional psychiatric/psychological opinions before proceeding with ANY treatment - including ECT.

52

Llamafresh wrote:

You’re missing the point: ECT is not a therapy. I don’t care what you call it, I don’t care if it is sanctioned by psychiatric tradition of 50 or 250 years. It is criminal fraud right now, and even if they are still doing it in 250 years it will not be sanctified by even that amount of time.

Unzap

53

Llamafresh wrote:
>>Several people have argued that pro- or neutral reports on ECT are based on conflict of interest. ECT is one of the least profitable treatments for depression compared to drug therapy or psychotherapy.<<

Not for the psychiatrist. What does a psychiatrist get, financially speaking, from drug therapy? $100-$150 bucks every six weeks to see a patient for ten minutes and write prescriptions.

How many psychiatrists do psychotherapy? Very few…insurance isn’t paying for that much these days, at least not in full.

Insurance (and Medicare and Medicaid) DOES pay in full for ECT. They pay the hospital bill, full doctor bills, etc. Plus, when a person is hospitalized for two-three weeks, a visit a day for two minutes, but charged off at 15 can really add to the coffers.

Not to mention… the psychiatrist’s fee of a few hundred dollars for the actual ECT treatment, times 8 to 12 average treatments per patient? That isn’t financially appealing???

That sure as hell beats the 100 dollars the doc might make on the same patient for one visit in that same time period for a prescription.

Compare thousands versus one hundred and figure it out…and times that by the number of patients a doctor has undergoing ECT.

If there’s no huge profit in it, then why does Psychiatric Times recommend psychiatrists learn ECT to DOUBLE THEIR INCOME???

Even if a doctor only charged $100 per treatment (I don’t know of any who charge that small of an amount, but just for sake of argument)…plus a visit three times a week (say 100 bucks a pop, which is low). In two weeks, on one patient (say treatment 4 times a week, which is average) he’s made $1,400. No insurance hassles, pure money. Not even any overhead for his office staff.

And that’s a very lowball figure…

>>> A much
stronger conflict of interest argument can be made for some proponents of drug therapies such as the serotonin reuptake inhibitors.<<<

How many psychiatrists own pharmaceutical companies?

When it’s come out that HMOs owned part of the company that makes Effexor and were making their doctors push that drug, shit hit the fan…CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>>>I’m quite sure that the pharmaceutical industry would profit greatly by demonstrating that Prozac or Paxil were both safer AND more effective than ECT. However, no such reports have appeared.<<<

When you talk about the effectiveness of ECT, you keep forgetting to mention that it’s very temporary…usually just a few weeks. By the time the person gets out of hospital and recovers from the assault, it’s time to go back in for more!!!

54

I co-coordinate Support Coalition, an alliance of 70 grassroots groups working for human rights of people diagnosed with a mental disorder. A lot of our key leaders – and board members – experienced human rights violations during electroshock.

We’re the group that got the federal goverment to issue a report (too small, lacked teeth) on this subject… but at least that report acknowledged the FORCED electroshock – even illegal forced electroshock – is occasionally done in the USA! And it acknowledged our concerns about the high rate of memory problems, the horribly flawed informed consent process, the lack of alternatives being offered, etc.

Here’s a few facts about electroshock:

  • The 1985 National Institutes of Health Consensus Report on electroshock made sure to talk about the high frequency of persistent memory problems that individuals attributed to shock. Rule of thumb: A study was cited that MORE THAN HALF of people complain of subjective memory problems they attribute to shock MORE THAN THREE YEARS LATER. Get that? More than half, more than three years later.

  • In my 23 years of work as a human rights advocate, NO informed consent sheet I have ever seen EVER tells ANYONE about the above NIH-cited number!

  • Instead, such as Sacred Heart and State of Oregon here in my home state, shock facilities tell people that only about one in 200 people report serious memory problems after shock.

Where did they get that 1 in 200 number? The Washington Post did an expose about electroshock, and looked into it. Turns out it came from individuals with DIRECT financial ties to the electroshock manufacturing, and they admit that “1 in 200” number is anecdotal and “impressionistic” with NO DATA to back it up.

You see, the Food & Drug Admninistration (which many people might think of as The Big Bad Government) actually has done ZERO about investigating and oversight of electroshock. That’s right, they poke their nose into everything else, but when it comes to the four U.S. manufacturers of devices that can cause you – in some instances – permananent memory problems… the FDA has washed its hands. It’s the Wild Wild West. There’s NO regulation buddy, none. Shock is still a “Class III” device, which technically is hazardous; the FDA has never done the LEGALLY REQUIRED investigation of safety and efficacy of these devices. We’re back in “The Jungle” that was portrayed in the book by that name (back in Chicago’s Stockyards, a story that helped provoke creating an FDA). Get it? This is TOTALLY PRIVATIZED. The shock doctors and shock manufacturers run the whole show – the regulation, the investigation, the studies, the informed consent, EVERYTHING. And if you think self interest does NOT influence those men runninng around in white coats, then perhaps YOU have a white coat in the closet, my dear reader!

Anyway, several neurologists and psychiatrists hypothesize that how shock “works” is similar to the well-known phenominon following a head injury or stroke. There is often a personality change following a brain trauama, that includes a syndrome of denial of problems, amnesia and sometimes even giddiness or euphoria.

But the best studies available, and there are very few, at best show any “lift” from shock is shortlived, about four weeks. That’s why there’s an enormous relapse after shock. That’s why there is no OUTPATIENT MAINTENANCE ELECTROSHOCK, every month, for many people… to juice them up for that fading head injury high each month.

There’s a lot of evidence for the “head injury high” theory of shock. One is that the actual “joules” – the electrical energy given during shock – is now actually far higher than the shock devices of old… FAR HIGHER THAN NEEDED TO INDUCE THE “CONVULSION” that shock proponents claim is the heart of the “unknown causes of improvement” they talk about.

By the way, watch out for a brand new type of shock – minus the shock and convulsion (gee, i thought that they NEEDED that convulsion for it to work). It’s called TMS, and the NIH is already openly funding human studies.

Anyway, more information about shock, contact our organization: Support Coalition.

People can contact us for a free copy of our newsjournal DENDRON, which has a couple of pages about shock, and info about how to get books, etc. and contact organizations of shock survivors.

E-mail us: dendron@efn.org Include your postal address.

We also e-mail out free occasional human rights alerts on this subject, ask to be put on the DENDRITE e-mail list.

Our web site has info – click on the spinning brain that is spitting out lightning bolts on our home page:

www.efn.org/~dendron

It’s part of our ZAPBACK e-mail list.

You can also phone our office:
(541) 345-9106.

We’re in Eugene, Oregon, write us:

Support Coalition
PO Box 11284
Eugene, OR 97440-3484

I appreciate the “straight dope” and perhaps FINALLY some information can get out to the public about the horrible human rights violations STILL going on in this field – in fact increasing. This story was voted one of the top 25 “Censored Stories” by Sonoma’s “Project Censored.” Since then a few folks – such as Norman Solomon, USA Today and Washington Post – have done some excellent work. But there’s still a LOT OF SILENCE about the hazards of shock.

Talk to us about shock… Thanks.

Stop forced psychiatry!

55

Forgive me if this report doesn’t look as it should. I’m afraid the way my brain works since ECT isn’t good but I felt it important to try and get this document onto the Straight Dope board.

This survey is not the opinion of Psychiatrists or so called Experts, it is a record of the every day kind of living (in Hell) of people who have been damaged by ECT.

No doubt there are those of you who will dispute this survey and try to pull it to bits. You’ll go on quoting facts and figures from Medical Articles and variouse “Experts” that suit your argument for administering ECT but whether you lik it or not the facts this survey contains are true. Which makes it all the more chilling.

None of the people who filled in this survey are ECT Specialists or Experts, they’re just ordinary people like me.

Shock-Treatment Damage Survey

ECT Anonymous have just published the results of a survey of their members on the damage done to them by ECT. The survey was carried out using a questionnaire which asked survivors about any short and long-term benefits of ECT they had experienced; any mental or physical conditions which had developed since receiving ECT; any diseases which had developed since receiving ECT and how it had affected their careers. The questionnaire was sent to 500 survivors and more than 200 responded. The results show that ECT causes even more damage than was previously thought.

© Copyright 1999 ECT Anonymous

(Very long, copyrighted article removed. Please go to the website to read it. Thank you. Jill)

Remember what was said at the beginning of this article, these facts and figures are a part of every day “living” (if it can reasonably be called that) for the recipients of ECT damage. The ECT that was going to solve all their mental problems… I think not… Do you???
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]

56

The Web address for the ECt Anon Survey results is:-
http://members.aol.com/wmaco4301.
This will bring up "Going Mental. When you get to the main page click on news.

There are lots more pages of information on this web site to do with various aspects of Mental Problems, Therapy etc.

57

Please Note.COPYRIGHT WARNING.

The ECT Anon Survey is free to all via the web site mentioned above (The Going Mental Site) . However, copyright is reserved, no one being allowed to reproduce it for a fee or profit from it in any way without express written consent from ECT Anon, although free distribution is encouraged.

Hard copy of the original format of the report is available from ECT Anon via the email contact on the above site for $1 + postage. This covers photocopying costs.

Andy Bithell. ECT Anon. Telford Branch. UK. As authorised by Pat and Roy Butterfield at Head Office, Kiethley, Yorkshire.UK.

58

Very well, my apologies. I was simply trying to recoup my own costs of reproducing. Offering it for free here is a hardship I must forgo, so if anyone wants a hardcopy by mail then order it from ECT anon.

Dr. Breggin can afford to sue me for reproducing his article, which I also offered FOR THE COST OF REPRODUCING AND MAILING, and I suppose also has a right to do that, since I didn’t ask his permission either, but I understand that ECT anon cannot.

However, I would think twice if I were you about discouraging anyone from distributing material that debunks the massive PR of the psychiatric industry, over details of formal permission. I’m not going to make a profit over this. I have run expensive adds, and only gotten perhaps one or no response to many of them, so am actually losing money.

Again, I will hope you who are fellow shock survivors will understand if I loose track of proper procedure at times, 22 zaps to the brain can make such things difficult, especially if you also suffering from Post-Polio Brain Fatigue and are perhaps also edging into early Alzheimers because of shock.

Offer to “sell” ECT anon material hereby retracted.

Sincerely,
Unzap

I also deleted it. Unzap and others - you also put the Straight Dope site in potential legal hot water when you reproduce copyrighted material on our site. It is also especially inadvisable to try to sell material that isn’t yours. I think your hearts are in the right place, but please keep these rules in mind. Thanks.
Jill
[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat]

59

I’m leaving. I’m sorry for the discussion getting sidetracked. Let’s hear again from those who want to ‘help’ us by scrambling our brains. Maybe they’ve run out of justifications? I’d be interested to see their continued posts, but can’t myself participate in this board anymore.

Unzap

60

Some (but not all) of the respondents who criticize ECT have used dishonest rhetorical techniques to make their case. Sadly, whatever value there may have been in what they had to say was completely smothered by the manner in which they said it. If they actually had a credible and responsible argument, they could have made it in a credible and responsible manner. It’s usually when the facts are against them that people resort to the sort of snide personal insults and blatant misrepresentations like those that have been directed against the likes of llamafresh and Germ Boy.

Like a few of the other respondents, I too have been given bilateral ECT treatments (11 sessions all told). And I am extremely pleased with the results! The treatments have been an astonishing and unmitigated success.

(My last session was nearly a year ago and my mood, though much improved, has been quite stable throughout, so please don’t stoop to attributing my positive assessment to “euphoria and confusion”.)

My depression was not particularly severe, and I certainly wasn’t suicidal. However, my depression was severe enough that I wasn’t able to work. I had previously tried thirteen different anti-depressant medications (as well as desperately silly things like herbal “medicine”) without success before my psychiatrist brought up ECT for discussion.

My shrink certainly didn’t advocate ECT, but he said he thought he would be remiss if he failed to bring it to my attention. Both of us were leery of the idea: the popular media and scare stories like those above combined to create a dark aura of recklessness and danger around the treatment. In my naiveté, I thought the idea sounded too medieval to be taken seriously.

But having no realistic alternative, I went to the library and the Internet and started researching the reality behind the Halloween mask painted by some half-informed ECT opponents. To my surprise, the more I learned, the more it looked like ECT was the obvious next approach for me to try. Before long, I wasn’t merely willing, I was downright eager to subject myself to Unzap’s so-called “repeated electrical closed-head injuries.” (Don’tcha just love euphemisms? Not only can they make the appalling sound innocent, they can be used to make the helpful sound horrible).

I was worried about memory loss, so before the first session I wrote up a long series of Q & A’s that covered both recent and older events and personal experiences. As described earlier, I was pretty much out of it for a few hours after the first jolt/seizure (this period was kind of scary). Yet when I asked my Mother to quiz me the next day from the list I drew up, I scored 100 percent! So my feeling that I suffered no noticeable memory loss or other problems is based on more than just my subjective opinion.

None of the other people I’ve met who’ve had ECT (admittedly not a scientific sample) mentioned any problems, and they certainly all seemed “normal” (considering that they were candidates for ECT at all). As for people who report terrible consequences from their ECT treatments, who am I to say they’re wrong? But I can’t count the number of times ECT opponents and others have told me that I must be wrong or else that I’m a shill for the AMA, the psychiatric “lobby” (whoever they might be!), or the ECT device manufacturers. Many of them seem to think they’re being clever when they assert that I’ve “forgotten what I’ve forgotten”.

Personally, I’ve seen, heard, and read far too many people who jump at the chance to blame their misfortunes on whatever is handy and sounds vaguely plausible, like Nutrasweet or power lines. Many of the web sites listed in the responses above are thoroughly populated with folks who seem to fall into that category. If you want a more balanced view of the risks and benefits of ECT, I recommend you look elsewhere. Don’t make the mistake of giving undue credence to the doomsayers.

Given Cecil’s excellent history, I wasn’t surprised that his column upheld a more credible and informed perspective. ECT may be risky, but I can promise you it works extremely well for some.