No medical therapy is handled more differently by countries, regions, hospitals and doctors than electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This is surprising in an era when treatments that work should supposedly be used with some uniformity. Yet despite a consensus that ECT is the most effective treatment for severe depressive disorder, it comes at the bottom of the list in most treatment regimens for mood disorders.
Some of the unease about ECT stems from psychiatry’s dark past, when patients had fewer legal rights than prisoners. Not long ago, treatments such as lobotomies and ECT could be inflicted on patients without their consent — sometimes for punitive purposes.
But there is no comparable protest against the use of antipsychotic drugs, which have similarly been forced on people — and even used to torture prisoners. And, whereas few people now get ECT involuntarily, and in all cases consent is sought, a large and growing number are given antipsychotic drugs under false pretences, including children, vulnerable adults, patients with Alzheimer’s and a host of others whose lives are shortened by treatment, with no effort undertaken to seek their consent.
Although ECT’s opponents believe that it causes brain damage, this is difficult to prove. Like antipsychotic drugs, antidepressants and tranquilizers, ECT has an immediate organic effect. But, while ECT rarely, if ever, causes clear clinical evidence of brain damage and has not been shown to do so in animal studies, antipsychotic drugs regularly do, in the form of tardive dyskinesia and other syndromes. The same is true of antidepressants.
There is no dispute that ECT can cause short-term memory loss. But critics have found it difficult to demonstrate memory or other cognitive problems that endure beyond three months. Nor can enduring autobiographical memory disturbances and inability to remember lists be readily attributed to ECT, because ECT is rarely given on its own.
Indeed, very few of those who receive ECT do not also receive benzodiazepines, which cause significant autobiographical memory problems when given alone, and antipsychotic drugs, which cause difficulties with lists of names or telephone numbers, and other comparable problems. Yet these drugs are rarely, if ever, blamed for cognitive disturbances.
The failure of ECT’s critics to demonstrate what to them seems obvious indicates an active conspiracy to minimize treatment-induced problems and to block those who have been injured by treatment from seeking redress.
In fact, at recent guideline meetings in Britain on the issue of ECT, there have been no representatives from psychiatry, but many from patient groups. Organized psychiatry appears to have little interest in ECT, or is scared of harassment from patient advocates.
As a result, even evidence that a person’s mood and clinical state has been significantly improved after ECT can be transformed into evidence of brain damage. When patients come forward to say they were helped by ECT, or a patient’s medical record points to clinical improvement with treatment, the apparent improvements are read as indicating the disinhibition and vacuousness that accompanies brain damage.
There are better targets in mental health than ECT.
Where is the concern about the millions who are becoming physically dependent on antidepressants? Where are the protests about the one-year-olds being treated with antipsychotic drugs? How is it possible that, because no company with patented drugs is campaigning to help medical and nursing staff recognize the catatonic features displayed by one in 10 patients going through a psychiatric unit — features that could be treated rapidly with benzodiazepines or ECT — these features are missed completely? Why is it all but impossible to find anything but vilification of ECT on the Internet, and anything but glowing testimonies about drug treatments?
ECT’s critics seem to think that if they do not protest its use at every opportunity, its advocates will inflict it on people who do not need it. But, in contrast to psychotropic drugs, there are no marketing departments geared to maximizing ECT.
This visceral focus on ECT has almost certainly led to ever more people ending up on drugs and ever more brain damage and memory problems as a consequence. It sometimes seems that the critics are behaving according to the romantic illusion that if they can just abolish ECT, mental illness will disappear with it. Sigmund Freud would have been fascinated.
David Healy is a professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University. He has been involved as an expert witness in homicide and suicide trials involving SSRI drugs, and in bringing these problems to the attention of US and British regulators.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past