When it comes to ECT, the only stories that matter to mainstream media are the “it saved my life!” ones. Those who have claim injury and/or abuse are ignored, discredited and disregarded in any ECT discussion.
“your imagining things, you are mentally ill, after all”
“your a rare case and don’t represent the majority”
“if doctors forced you to have it, you probably needed it”
This blind invalidation needs to stop.
It’s time these accounts are treated as valid.
It’s time people keep asking questions–even when someone throws down a Suzie Success Story.
All personal accounts matter- not just “happy” ones.
Asking honest questions must be allowed and encouraged.
What do doctors really know or not know about ECT?
Why do some people feel helped?
What research has been done and by whom? Is there a conflict of interest? How are these studies conducted? How do doctors define depression and improvement?
Why is only one state keeping track of ECT induced deaths? Shouldn’t all doctors want complete and accurate risk data so their patients can make a truly informed choice?
Why aren’t patients given full informed consent?
Why don’t doctors take patients who claim injury, seriously?
Why don’t they offer before and after testing?
Why haven’t shock machines been tested by the FDA, after the decades ECT has been used? Or when the FDA was recommended to do so in 2011?
If the animal studies conducted in the 50’s and 60’s were so inadequate, why were they never repeated?
Why does some in medical practice who speaks critically of ECT get black-balled?
What role has the media played in promoting ECT? Have they shown journalistic integrity in the process?
How legitimate are the diagnosis labels used to justify ECT?
Why is honest ECT questioning always shut down?
Why does my story count for so little, when it would surely be treated as credible and praised if it were positive?
I could go on and on.
People don’t ask these questions when the discussion is dominated by Suzie Success Stories. Who wants to be the a*&hole that questions a “treatment” that “saved someones life?”
Questions like these are often viewed as offensive.
But why? Shouldn’t we want to know the answers for ALL patients?
Shouldn’t the Suzie’s out there want to know the truth too? That maybe there’s more to their depression and it’s treatment than they were originally told? Maybe, like me, their “treatment resistant depression” is actually treatable?
(2007). Retrieved from http://www.breggin.com/ECT/2007Neurop…
Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.ectresources.org/ECTscienc…
Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.ectresources.org/ECTscience/Hartelius_1952___Animals___Brain_damage__Definitive_.pdf
Andre, L. (1991, September). Electroshock as head injury. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.ect.org/effects/headinjury…
Andre, L. (2009). Doctors of deception: What they don’t want you to know about shock treatment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Breggin, P. R. (2015, April 8). Simple Truth 10: Electroshock is Brain Trauma [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOtac…
Committee for the Truth is Psychiatry. (n.d.). Electroconvulsive Therapy Causes Permanent Amnesia And Cognitive Deficits, Prominent Researcher Admits « ect.org. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.ect.org/?p=699
Friedberg, J. (1976). Shock treatment is not good for your brain. San Francisco: Glide Publications.
Further increase in the use of ECT without consent in England | ECT statistics. (2016, January 30). Retrieved March 12, 2016, from https://ectstatistics.wordpress.com/2…
Read, J. (2016, February 19). The Curious Case of over 50 Consecutive ECTs in Melbourne – Mad In America. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/02/t…