ECT- Living Better Electrically

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
61

Lazarus,

I think you should get your head examined–soon.

I had six treatments, so I’m technically not “fried,” just “crisped.” I can read in between the lines–just finished a paper on “close reading” which took many, many hours, but I got an outstanding interpretation in “Tess.” You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to read and understand the posted messages of people who have suffered permanent damages from ECT. Like many recipients of ECT, it takes several hours to comprehend what we used to take for granted. I take for granted that you didn’t read the posts–probably because of the after-effects of ECT. If you had read them, you would not be taking them so personally. I am thrilled to pieces that you think ECT is wonderful, terrific, the best thing that ever happened to you in your entire life (see, I can read in between the lines–still). But you take things so personally, and can’t get into reading things that offend you. I am personally offended that professionals take ECT personally (even though not one shrink will admit to receiving it—I read APA Online–that’s where I get my information from about its position on shock therapy). I take abuse from shrinks who tell me how great ECT is–I’m used to it. I don’t dish it out though–I don’t tell shrinks and MH people that I personally think ECT should be banned anymore, because I will end up in an institution for the remainder of my natural life and shocked, shocked, shocked to the psychiatric profession’s heartless content. And for you wonderful people who have actually benefitted from ECT–what can I say–want a dozen roses sent to you for standing up to tell us how brainwashed we are? Unlike you, I did not benefit from ECT, am sick of the mistake I made, but what else can be said–I made my bed and now I lie in it (just wish I can remember what possessed me to make that decision–the memory still hasn’t come back over a year). At one time I thought it would be good to help people–obviously that never occurred to you, you selfish individual, telling us brain-damaged folks how cruel we are to you because you benefitted from ECT.

Have a nice day!

62

Lazarus.

Infantile.Unqualified.Transparent.Suggest you do some more reading and actually have shock/and/or/get therapy from a psychologist.

63

Lazarus,

Assuming you have actually had ECT, (BIG ASSUMPTION-BUT I WILL SHOW YOU MINE IF YOU WILL SHOW ME YOURS-medical records, that is.), you say you have ‘‘lost count’’ of the number of opponents who have raised this issue with you.

So why is it that sycophants in the minority get listened to by shrinks yet the multitude get ignored?

EVERYONE who actually has shock suffers from short term, usually quite severe, memory loss. If you took your head out of your shrink’s ass long enough you would hear even him/her stating this universal fact. Your individual research is somewhat questionable then?

Go read the papers listed on this site and then come back. If indeed you ever had shock.

64

This kind of invective has no place here. We encourage vigorous debate but if you guys can’t keep it civil we’re going to close this thread and you can take it up in the BBQ Pit.

65

I’d like to know your definition of a tool? Like a wrench or a screwdriver? ECT is just like most of the drugs given out for depression: “try this one, sometimes it works”. We’re really not sure how or why it works or why it doesn’t. Hey, let’s shoot electricity through your brain, sometimes that helps. We don’t know why, but since your so desperate or apathetic or gullable, you won’t mind. Don’t worry, we’ll drug you into a stupor and strap you down before we start, so you don’t flail all over and hurt yourself. Yes, there are side effects, physical, emotional, societal, but don’t worry, it’s paid for. Sometimes what passes for medicine, sure doen’t sound very scientific to me.

66

A real question.
Why do those who are opposed to ECT so vehemently object to someone who apparently has had no ill-effects and even benefitted? Is there absolutely NO benefit potential from this treatment?
Can there be the possibility that the technique might help a segment of people in spite of your negative history?
Truly curious to see if anyone might be able to say, “Hmm, interesting opinion (observation), I never thought of that.” An awful lot of “needing to be right” in this place.

67

Keith
I looked up “tool” in Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s what it says
“any implement, instrument or utensil held in the hand and used for cutting, hitting, digging, rubbing etc: knives, saws, hammers, shovels, rakes, etc are tools. Any similar insturment that is the working part of a power-driven machine, as a drill, band-saw blade etc. THe whole machine; machine tool; a means; as books are a scholar’s tools. A person used by another to accomplish his purposes, especially when these are illegal or unethical; dupe; stooge.”

I’ve spoken to many persons who had ECT. For those who signed on the dotted line, as I did, it is a decision many of us regret, deeply. However we were not told of the possible or probable lasting effects, but instead were told “safe, effective and no memory loss” (or with bilateral memory loss only for the period of time the treatments were administered)…If you’ve seen any media shows on the subject, when a doctor is asked by the interviewer “Just how much electricity is used?” The response is not “so many volts” or so many hertz or joules"…but rather “a very small amount”.
My records show between 120 and 150 volts.

This is a massive electrical dose considering the brain’s 14 volt system. This voltage (as charted was used in my ECT) was in the zone of pain/noxious-level stimulation (Robinson, A.J. Snyder-Mackler, L.S. (1995)m Clincal Electrophysiology; Electrotherapy and Electrophysiologic Testing, 2nd Edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkens , Page 291) and is far beyond the body’s normal physiological range, where as little as 1/10 amps can be fatal.
2.5 to 5 times the electricity needed to produce a convulsion or grand mal seizure is used (Abrams, R, “Electroconvulsive Therapy” 1997, pages 608-612). If the seizure itself were the “goal” of ECT, there would be no need to exceed the amount of electricity needed to induce a grand mal seizure.Thus the seizure alone is not what causes the sometimes produced “high” or euphoria experienced by persons getting ECT. Sufficient intensity of “boidly discharge” is required (Sackheim et al 1993, Effects of stimulus intensity and electrode placement on the efficacy and cognitive effects of Electroconvulsive therapy, New England Journal of Medicine, 328 (12)

The need for high dosages of electricity suggests that ECT “works” by electrical injury.

Having ECT was the single worst decision of my life. If I could go back and “un-do” only one decision in my life, it would be not to have ECT. I have seen other shock survivors blame themselves for consenting to ECT…the point is, that none of us were told we could have permanant brain damage from this “treatment” We weren’t told it not only could “erase” years of memory, but leave us with brain damage that makes every day a struggle, from morning till night, fumbling around not knowing what we were going to do next, trying to find things (not to be confused with occassional misplacing of keys etc)…or, as in my case, being diagnosed with EEG verified “diffuse encphalopathy” at an age of early 40’s.

ECT proponents like to consider us often as complaining over minor type memory problems that everyone experiences from time to time. Or perhaps we are angry because we can’t remember a particular event in our lives.

This is not the case with the majority of shock survivors who are angered, yea, enraged at what was done to them, in the name of “help” or “therapy” or “accepted medical treatment.”

Your post is well taken, and, for myself at least, I don’t know how I could have accepted the statements of an MD who lied to me…but I did. I’m the one who lives with the results of it, everyday for nearly 16 years.

My profession(s), college training, talents, who I was, and the mother of my children were abruptly and dramatically simply “taken”. I assure you, I didnt simply automatically “accept” the brain damage, the disability and set back to a life of writing posts to ECT boards, giving speeches or wrting to legislators and media people.

Your input is well taken, Keith.

68

Barb writes:

>>If you’ve seen any media shows on the subject, when a doctor is asked by the interviewer “Just how much electricity is used?” The response is not “so many volts” or so many hertz or joules"…but rather “a very small amount”. My records show between 120 and 150 volts.<<

I’ve seen this figure of 120-150 volts (your emphasis) mentioned a couple of times in this thread. A number like this does not impress me without lots of additional information.

I live in a very dry climate (especially in winter). I have received some extremely painful static shocks after walking across my carpeted basement and touching some grounded piece of metal. IIRC, the breakdown voltage of dry air is about 10,000 volts per cm. Judging by some of the sparks I’ve seen coming off my finger, I’ve received a few 5000-10000 volt jolts to my finger with no ill effects. No, a finger is not as vital or complex as a brain, but voltage alone is insufficient information to determine danger.

So, I have a few clarifying questions, if you don’t mind. Is that 120-150 volts the actual voltage across the brain, or is that total voltage drop between the ECT electrodes, with some voltage drop occuring across non-vital (from the POV of neurological function) tissue like the skin, skull, and meninges? What is the current? How much of the current actually goes through the brain tissue, and how much passes around the brain through other pathways? How does that compare to biological electrical currents (I’d guess it’s large, but I honestly don’t know)? Is the shock AC or DC? If AC, what frequency? You point out correctly that energy deposition (joules) into the brain might be a better measure (or it might not, who knows?). For that, you need voltage and current.

I’m really not trying to be cheeky, and I have no opinion either way on the ECT debate. I just hate to see numbers thrown about in an alarming way when they mean very little on their own. I’m not saying that your number might not be alarming–just not by itself.

Rick
Fighting innumeracy since the early '80’s…it’s taking longer than I thought (with apologies)

69

Hey Rick, I’ve just sent Barb a few facts for you. Sufficient charge, delivered at a sufficient PD and a plenty high enough frequency to kill. It causes fits, for goodness sake.By the way, the resistance of the subject’s (victim’s) head can vary some forty fold. Tough on those poor suckers over the years who had a low resistance skull, eh?

70

AB-

Tone is extremely difficult to discern in bulletin board postings, but your reply to my message sounds like I ticked you off. Please be assured, I’m not looking to increase the tension. I just want arguments to be made with useful information.

Once again, I did not deny (or affirm) that ECT may have deleterious effects. Both those who consider it an effective treatment and those who consider it ghastly torture agree that it has some effect (in addition to the immediate convulsive effects–hence the ‘C’ in ECT). I just don’t care for scary-sounding numbers used out of context. In context, they may or may not actually be scary.

Continuing to breathe calmly,
Ric

71

I am, for one, very happy this debate is going on. For those of you who haven’t had ECT–get it done and come back in a few months and tell me how great you feel about having had it. Germboy, my answer to your very simple question is: the shrinks who pocketed the money. The hospital that no longer performs it. The medical students and their instructors I euphorically told them something about my experience but cannot remember. Did I gain anything potential? No. Would you like me to advocate it? No. Would I ask for help again if I decide to commit suicide because of my depression? No. Do I want help? No. Would I rather use what ability I have left to discourage others from receiving ECT? Yes. Do I have anthing nice to say about ECT? No. I take care of what is left of me to try to make myself useful again, and it is not going to be wasted on advocating ECT. Do I feel sorry for people who have benefitted from ECT? No.No.No. I do not feel sorry for people who have received ECT and tell me how caring and nurturing the mental health system is either; my experience has been that it has ruined my life. Fortunately I do not tell mental health professionals how ignorant they are when they tell me my cognitive deficits are caused by depression. I do not want your sympathy either. It’s not worth it.

72

Rick
My records from ECT in 1983 did not list on the charting “AC” or “DC” or amps. The records did list voltage and in one of the treatmentsI believe, joules. I learned after the shock some years later that their “new machine” was out for repairs for at least part of the 13 ECT’s I recieved out pt…and they were using the “old machine”…how “old” I don’t know. The older machines, I’m told used direct wall current.

Further, I was unconscious during the procedure and have no memory to go by. EEG’s verify brain damage.

Richard Abrams, who has in the past been on the APA Task Force on ECT has stated that the hippocampus is a direct hit of ECT. The hippocampus is not on the exterior of the brain, cut rather deep within the brain.

I have had college physics, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, and was an honor’s graduate, however, I couldn’t begin to tell you the first thing about any of those courses, nor could I do so back in 1983 after the ECT, though I had graduated the year prior. This is just some of what was 'erased" by ECT.

I do have info here, research articles, books, that I could refer you to, if you like. The materials are here, and finding them might take me a while, but I will forward titles to you as I locate, if this is what you want.

Since the ECT my visual memory is practically non-existant…as is my ability to organize anything. I would therefore encourage others who have done research on this subject to post re the particulars and the physics/electric particulars.

I will attempt to locate some articles and facts for you with sources, but I can’t guarantee when I will find same…though the materials is here.

I can tell you that numerous EEG’s verify the damage to my brain. One EEG even noted circumscribed areas of hyperirritability on both temporal lobes. "circumscribed’, indicating areas of circles…the shape of the electrodes. Generalized slowing, Worst damage is in the direct path of the elctrical current in the frontal and temporal lobes.

I have asked a couple of persons who are more knowledgeable in the area of electricity / electrical engineering to please post a reponse. Anyone out there with this material handy, please help.

You might consider contacting the FDA to see what there documents say about these machines re the safety standards and inspections required on shock devices…see for yourself, there are no required inspections or safety standards, unless this is something that has occurred in the last couple of years and without my knowledge.

The main requirement for “safety” is that the plug that goes into the wall is underwirter’s lab approved…same as the plug on your coffee pot, toaster, microwave.

I know an electrical engineer, but he moved this last winter, and I’m having difficulty tracking down his new phobne number. Should I be able to contact him, and have him go over the particulars, perhaps he will post.

I would answer your question if I could, but without finding the papers, I’m not able to do so.

IF I luck out and locate these documents, I will post again re this matter, but the info may come in bits and pieces

73

Rick
I forgot to include this info, which was sent to me. This is for the Mecta SRI/JR1
“The above machine can be set (male bilateral) to deliver a charge of 576 times 10 to the minus 3 C. That is at a pd (voltage) of 150 volts.”
“It can thus deliver a total of 86.4 Joules of energy. That is via a brief pulse bi-phasic (AC) wave form at a frequency of 90Hz.”

I am no longer mentally or intellectually capable of discussing the above facts and figures with a scientist. Likely, I once was.
Just as I am no longer capapble or playing Chopin, Mozart or Brahms…
I didnt “lose” my musical abilities either, they were abruptly taken without my permission.

74

[[Once again, I did not deny (or affirm) that ECT may have deleterious effects. ]] RickG
You are suggesting that it’s possible that ECT may not have any deletrious effects?

75

Sue, I appreciate and respect your point of view. I admit that my remark that some people will blame their problems on just about anything was totally inappropriate (although I was certainly not referring to you). I apologize.

But why do you call me selfish? Please tell me exactly how it hurts you for me to tell the truth that I was dramatically helped by ECT. I certainly never blindly advocated it for others, nor did I deny that there is evidence that it can at times be extremely harmful. And I certainly would never even consider asking you or anyone else to advocate ECT.

You talk about “reading between the lines”. May I respectfully suggest that you’re reading too much there? You complained that I was “telling [you] brain-damaged folks how cruel we are to you because you benefitted from ECT.” Where on earth did you get that from?

I merely pointed out that people who report horrible results from ECT are instantly and totally believed but those of us who’ve had good results are often assailed by an “ABithell”-style regimen of knee-jerk denials, vituperation, and vicious personal attacks. Is that fair?

Not one person in this thread has claimed that ECT is a panacea, that it is totally effective in all cases and is utterly without serious risk. No one has argued that there have been no horrible consequences resulting from ECT. On the other hand, some posters have stated or at least suggested that ECT is useless and always causes serious injury. I’m here to say that this is FALSE. And I know this from first-hand direct experience.

Sue, you suggest people “get it done and come back in a few months and tell me how great you feel about having had it.” Well, Sue, I’ve had it and I feel great! I’m honestly very sorry things didn’t work out for you, though.

My success might conceivably have been a one-time (or rather, an eleven-time) fluke. But I seriously doubt it. No one seemed to think my case was unusual, and no one solicited me for participation in a study or anything. Considering that I was a candidate for ECT at all, everything about it seemed routine.

All I claim is that ECT is clearly beneficial and safe for some. I do not claim this is so for all.

Have a nice day.

76

Lazarus.

‘‘Vicious attacks’’ eh? '‘Knee jerk’'eh?

Can’t be more vicious than having shock FORCED on you, despite the assistance of a solicitor and a social worker. Yes that’s right, FORCED. That’s what happened to me. That’s what is happening in the UK right now.

No balanced debate there buddy. You have it or we force you to have it. Risks an’ all.

So identify yourself. I will send you evidence of my sufferings in exchange for proof of who you are and confirmation that you are not a member of one of the conservative mental health groups.

The only reason I don’t jump down your throat is associated with the fact that you MAY be genuine. In which case you are in a minority. The good old USA is supposed to be a democracy. Democracy=freedom of speech, yes, but also=majority rule.That’s why some states in your country also kills minors for murder. Only one of two countries in the world to do this. Yet this principle always fails when money is involved.

I repeat, identify yourself. If you do not then you are not worth responding to. Just like every other industry/establishment ‘‘plant’’.

There is one other possible explanation. Perhaps you were a participant in a double blind trial and you never actually got the shock? Or the machine was busted? It has happened before.

77

To one and all,

It seems to me that the failure to balance arguments clearly sits with ABithell and few others in the anti-ECT camp. AB in particular seems to like to demand authentication/identification of anyone who disagrees with him. In fact, he has essentially accused all who disagree with him of lying about their identity, experience or data in order to bolster a pro-ECT stance. As Lazarus pointed out, no one who has presented positive information about ECT has suggested that ECT is risk-free – we simply assert that it can be beneficial for some people.

I completely agree that informed consent is critical - if AB was forced to undergo ECT then the fault is less with the procedure than with the use of force. Being forced to undergo ANY treatment/procedure is a violation of person and autonomy. It can be justified ONLY in cases where the individual is a real danger to self or society and the treatment has a real likelihood of reducing that risk (even if the reduction is comparatively short-lived). If that wasn’t the case for AB (i.e. he wasn’t a risk to himself or society and/or the treatment wasn’t likely to help) then I can see why he is so angry. Likewise, even if his treatment was legally/medically justified, the fact that he perceives ECT as damaging him makes his anger understandable.

However, none of those possible explanations diminishes the fact that ECT is beneficial for some depressed patients. Why it is beneficial is no more understood than why antidepressant drugs or psychotherapy are beneficial. What is understood is that ECT has much more rapid antidepressant effects than either drugs or psychotherapy and that ECT is safer than drugs or psychotherapy for SOME (no, AB, not all) patients (e.g. suicidal patients, patients on some cardiovascular medications, patients who can’t tolerate drugs).

Once again, INFORMED DECISIONS are critical to any medical/psychological treatment. If you have any questions about a treatment recommendation, research the treatment and/or get a 2nd or 3rd opinion.

78

Lazarus,

My point of view, obviously, is from someone who did not benefit from ECT. We agree on that issue.

My point of view is from someone who lost abilities following ECT. We agree on that.

My point of view is from someone who may have suffered brain damage as a consequence of ECT. That has not been established medically. There has been significant personality change following ECT–reports of being “abusive”–this has never been a part of my personality prior to ECT. I know enough about neurology to understand that there may be a link between this personality change and brain damage. I know enough about from my experience with the mental health profession that there is complete reluctance to base my personality change on anything but depression. This part I cannot buy.

My experience is on the Internet. I suffered a severe brain-injury from an automobile accident, but I lost more memory from ECT than I did from the brain injury from an open-head injury. Yes, there was a personality change following the automobile accident, but nowhere near to what I am experiencing now.

I have read Dr. Sterling’s reports as well as a few of Dr. Breggin’s studies to know that what I did, by consenting to ECT, was not in my best interests, but now it’s too late. As a former employee in the neuropathology department at Penn, I should have known that ECT causes brain damage. That is where I am coming from.

I cannot remember consenting to it, but within a year’s time, I have noticed significant changes in my ability to use my mental faculties. These are not emotionally based.

I am attacked by non-medical people, as well as mental health professionals, for my belief that ECT causes brain damage. I will ardently defend people who have suffered brain damage from ECT because I know they have, based on what I have read, what I learned in the past, and knowledge I have gained in understanding that the manufacturers, distributors, and teachers (also members of the Task Force of the APA) of shock machines have continually prevented the reporting of numerous incidents of brain damage caused by ECT.

I am in no position so say that “everybody” who has received ECT is going to be brain damaged–I am disabled, thus I cannot verify this.
I cannot say that cardiologists are wrong in recommending surgery, also a risk. But the American Heart Association has a better track record of the consequences of its procedures that the American Psychiatric Association. Case in point: doctors are questioning the efficacy of balloon angioplasty. The APA, on the other hand, says, in all instances, ECT is safe and efficacious. And it is not. The APA vehemently denies that brain damage results from ECT–yet only 5 states keep any statistics on the failure of ECT. No one knows how much damage ECT causes, because no one organization is required to take account of instances of brain damage caused by ECT. We don’t even have an idea of how much ECT is performed, but I’ll bet the American Cancer Society has a better idea of how many deaths are caused by cancer. The American Psychiatric Association, on the other hand, stands on its belief that ECT does not cause brain damage.

I know you had ECT done, based on your post only, and that you benefitted from it. Did I not gush with happiness that you benefited? Yes, I will admit to drip with sarcasm at times, and it is inappropriate. Could it possibly be because I am suffering from petit mal seizures, consequential to ECT? Very possible.

It ECT is not effective all of the time, if there is a hit-and-miss probability that ECT causes brain damage and permament memory loss, why then is the APA adamant in stating that it does not? The memory loss, BTW, is not of events immediately preceding or following the administration of ECT. Many receiptients of ECT suffer permanent cognitive deficits that are permanent. Mine are. Barb’s are. Why has the FDA not reclassified shock machines as Class II rather than Class III, as an unsafe machine? The answer is because the APA has repeatedly been involved in changing the classification, despite safety hazards and documents the FDA holds stating that ECT causes brain damage.

I made an error in consenting to ECT at a time when I was emotionally beat, and would have done anything to feel better. My anger surfaces when I am challenged (emotional) because I know I suffered permanent damage, i.e., memory loss and cognitive deficits, and still live with depression. Academically, I can be rational because I have to. In a debate that hits me in the face, I have to be competely focused, but I am no longer able to “focus” when it involves my CNS and emotions.

If my comments were inflammatory, they were no more inflammatory than yours.

79

Llama

To request proof of identity in a debate concerning such a serious subject when one’s supposed identity is crucial to the credability of the argument being made, i.e. presenting as a person who has had shock but has apparently not experienced any, (not even short-term), side effects is only reasonable, especially when an opponent is offering to reciprocate.

It is not an accusation of lying. It is a request to qualify an argument.That said, failure to reply to such a query could give rise to doubts being raised concerning authenticity, admittedly.

In a similar fashion, your failure to reply to my repeated challeges concerning your ignorance re: the Benbow report raises similar questions concerning your professed knowlege in this subject area.

ECT is not given in the UK without consent only in dire circumstances. Neither scenario as described by yourself applied to me. That is why my case is going to law. Along with several hundred others.

On the contrary, my position is very balanced under the circumstaces. I do not seek a ban on the process, for example. People are free to smoke after all. Difference is: a,consumers now know the risks and b,taking aside the issue of passive smoking, people are not forced to smoke.

This is not any evidence that shock saves lives or renders third-party risk individuals any less of a risk. There are NO grounds for forcing shock on anyone.

Why am I bothering with you?

80

“A vast medical literature provides strong evidence that electroconvulsive therapy causes permanent brain damage, including loss of memory and catastrophic deterioration of personality…
During my 20 years as a community psychiatrist I have treated many patients who have been subjected to shock therapy. My experience as a clinician corroborates the many empirical studies that conclude that electroconvulsive therapy is abusive and inhumane, and causes irreversible physical and emotional damage.”
…HUGH L. POLK (U.S. psychiatrist), letter to New York Times, August 1, 1993
Contrast: "In light of the avaialble evidence, “brain damage” need not be included (in the informed consent form for ECT) as a potential Therapy, The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy: Reccomendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging, 3.5, 1990)