5 ms·

Sorry but there are dozens of studies and hundreds of reports of people basically losing memories of entire portions of their life and the ability to do simple

Sorry but there are dozens of studies and hundreds of reports of people basically losing memories of entire portions of their life and the ability to do simple things like tie their shoelaces or do simple math after just one round of ECT. How this is still not banned by the FDA is beyond me. Not to mention the number of people who get heart complications from it or outright die during the procedure. How can you say that "the alternative is unbearable"is beyond me, unless you're saying it's better to become mentally disabled than suffer from depression? The argument that "this is not the same ECT" is also bogus. The difference is now they paralyze you so you don't convulse and break your bones while doing it. They also use a higher voltage (more damaging to brain cells) and higher frequencies with shorter, repeated bursts (also causes more brain damage and hemorrhaging). But it's "better" because the patient doesn't thrash around so much anymore. Give me a break. Summary of the issues with ECT and associated studies: https://truthaboutect.org/ect-causes-brain-damage-a-review-of-the-literature/ https://truthaboutect.org/ect-causes-brain-damage-a-review-o... http://emord.com/blawg/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/1-ECT-Citizen-Petition.pdf http://emord.com/blawg/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/1-ECT-Citi...

depressed 8y ago
Have you ever had someone close to you commit suicide? If so, is that truly a better outcome than undergoing ECT? If not, then I want you to understand this: ECT is used to treat a lethal illness.
- imperio59 8y ago
  I'm sorry but that's the equivalent of saying "This person is about to kill themselves, so let's take a bat and hit them over the head with it so they can't do that now. See, now they're doing fine, they're not killing themselves." Would you take someone who is about to kill themselves and take a pair of live electric wires to their head to try to "cure" them? Because that's essentially what ECT is, despite all the supposed "new and improved" spiel which is marketing speak, that and they sedate you while doing it. Inducing brain damage is not treatment. Saying that is not denying the problems that some people are suicidal and need help. That's a very real issue. But ECT is very real scientific fraud, often done without fully informed consent on the parts of the patients and family members, often done against and over the wishes of the person receiving ECT, and billed for thousands of dollars to insurance companies over and over again, with results that go away once treatment stops and side effects that remain for a lifetime.
  - rincebrain 8y ago
    Most forms of treatment, in terms of therapy, psychiatric medication, or more invasive options, cease to be effective when they're removed, eventually. ECT and ketamine, for example, are sometimes found to be effective for O(months) after initial more frequent treatment, while most of the psychiatric meds you run through earlier if you're pursuing that type of treatment take weeks to become effective (or not), weeks to stop, and the beneficial effects often stop much sooner than the side effects after taking them (...if they stop at all, in some cases). ECT can and often does do lasting damage. It should not be used lightly. But singling out ECT for being a recurring treatment seems unreasonable when the other avenues of treatment, both behavioral and otherwise, have the same caveat.
  - nickbarnwell 8y ago
    There is a both a large and strong evidence base for the usage of ECT in cases of severe, treatment resistant depression. Many aspects of modern medicine can be made to sound barbaric with the right framing; those who disparage ECT are not so quick to characterise chemotherapy as “poison by any other name” or dialysis a “vampiric ball and chain”. By the time ECT is on the table, every other option is exhausted and the sufferer has been through multiple acute hospitalisations for suicidal ideation, if not unsuccessful attempts. It is certainly fair to say the effect is not always permanent, that maintenance courses are a burden, and that their long-term efficacy does not justify the risks of the procedure itself or the anaesthesia it requires. Nonetheless, for someone who has been depressed for many years, plagued by crippling ennui and a nihilistic view of existence not even Schopenhauer’s grimmest passages can match, any respite is welcome. To deny them that option, with full knowledge of the risks, is to deny them agency.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      And yet from the article ... "But he acquiesced when told that if he resisted, the hospital would seek a court order to overrule him." Are you claiming they would do this, yet have the deeply depressed patient's honest agreement ? I don't buy that. This was forced, under threat of force. To protect the hospital against having a successful suicide attempt on their record. Symptoms return. Normal cognitive function does not. That tells you more than enough. This person is now (hopefully lightly) mentally handicapped, and this has been done to her under threat. You might as well shoot the person. That has the same demonstrated effect. Seriously. Shooting someone with mental problems can fix those mental problems, many documented cases of that happening. (edit: corrected language)
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > Have you ever had someone close to you commit suicide? Yes. My girlfriend who lived with me for several years. > If so, is that truly a better outcome than undergoing ECT? Yes, absolutely, for the reasons imperio59 and others have already described. You don't solve mental issues by injuring the brain until they the symptoms are no longer obvious to outside observers. Also, using this type of emotional manipulation that presupposes the false dichotomy of "ECT or suicide" is highly offensive. There are many potential options, and you do not know what someone will do with or without any particular "treatment".
DanBC 8y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21609510 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21609510 > We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in mild to moderate and severe depression, and in treatment-resistant depression? Which interventions reduce relapse rates? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: > We found 88 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. This meta analysis found that ECT was beneficial. The point of ECT is not to act as a long lasting cure, it's to get someone out of a depressive episode so that they can engage in work to treat their depression - it's a life saving short term intervention that gives them time and space to do other work. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/speed-of-remission-in-elderly-patients-with-depression-electroconvulsive-therapy-v-medication/CB2FDDA34E329F72229609FCF85D0BC8 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
jdietrich 8y ago
>How can you say that "the alternative is unbearable"is beyond me, unless you're saying it's better to become mentally disabled than suffer from depression? Most people who would be considered eligible for ECT are actively suicidal; if they are released from hospital, they are almost certain to attempt suicide. Some are suffering from catatonic depression and are too depressed to perform even the most basic tasks, often including eating and drinking. The overwhelming majority are being held on secure psychiatric wards for their own protection. The alternative to ECT is usually death. If you don't understand this (or refuse to acknowledge it), then you don't understand why doctors continue to use ECT. Chemotherapy is horrible. It makes you constantly and violently nauseous, it makes your hair fall out, it can cause lasting physical damage and the side-effects are sometimes fatal. It's horrible, but it's better than the alternative, which is dying of cancer. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that ECT is a life-saving medical intervention. The first link you posted is a highly biased summary of evidence compiled by CCHR, a known Scientology front group; Scientology opposes all forms of psychiatry, largely because of the belief that its own (completely unproven) method of Dianetics is capable of resolving all forms of mental distress. Please see DanBC's comment for a more accurate summary of the evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry Your second link is to a citizens petition orchestrated by a law firm; the petition was rejected by the FDA on the basis of the evidence. https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2016-P-2559-0029&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2...

depressed 8y ago

Have you ever had someone close to you commit suicide? If so, is that truly a better outcome than undergoing ECT? If not, then I want you to understand this: ECT is used to treat a lethal illness.

imperio59 8y ago
I'm sorry but that's the equivalent of saying "This person is about to kill themselves, so let's take a bat and hit them over the head with it so they can't do that now. See, now they're doing fine, they're not killing themselves." Would you take someone who is about to kill themselves and take a pair of live electric wires to their head to try to "cure" them? Because that's essentially what ECT is, despite all the supposed "new and improved" spiel which is marketing speak, that and they sedate you while doing it. Inducing brain damage is not treatment. Saying that is not denying the problems that some people are suicidal and need help. That's a very real issue. But ECT is very real scientific fraud, often done without fully informed consent on the parts of the patients and family members, often done against and over the wishes of the person receiving ECT, and billed for thousands of dollars to insurance companies over and over again, with results that go away once treatment stops and side effects that remain for a lifetime.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  Most forms of treatment, in terms of therapy, psychiatric medication, or more invasive options, cease to be effective when they're removed, eventually. ECT and ketamine, for example, are sometimes found to be effective for O(months) after initial more frequent treatment, while most of the psychiatric meds you run through earlier if you're pursuing that type of treatment take weeks to become effective (or not), weeks to stop, and the beneficial effects often stop much sooner than the side effects after taking them (...if they stop at all, in some cases). ECT can and often does do lasting damage. It should not be used lightly. But singling out ECT for being a recurring treatment seems unreasonable when the other avenues of treatment, both behavioral and otherwise, have the same caveat.
- nickbarnwell 8y ago
  There is a both a large and strong evidence base for the usage of ECT in cases of severe, treatment resistant depression. Many aspects of modern medicine can be made to sound barbaric with the right framing; those who disparage ECT are not so quick to characterise chemotherapy as “poison by any other name” or dialysis a “vampiric ball and chain”. By the time ECT is on the table, every other option is exhausted and the sufferer has been through multiple acute hospitalisations for suicidal ideation, if not unsuccessful attempts. It is certainly fair to say the effect is not always permanent, that maintenance courses are a burden, and that their long-term efficacy does not justify the risks of the procedure itself or the anaesthesia it requires. Nonetheless, for someone who has been depressed for many years, plagued by crippling ennui and a nihilistic view of existence not even Schopenhauer’s grimmest passages can match, any respite is welcome. To deny them that option, with full knowledge of the risks, is to deny them agency.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    And yet from the article ... "But he acquiesced when told that if he resisted, the hospital would seek a court order to overrule him." Are you claiming they would do this, yet have the deeply depressed patient's honest agreement ? I don't buy that. This was forced, under threat of force. To protect the hospital against having a successful suicide attempt on their record. Symptoms return. Normal cognitive function does not. That tells you more than enough. This person is now (hopefully lightly) mentally handicapped, and this has been done to her under threat. You might as well shoot the person. That has the same demonstrated effect. Seriously. Shooting someone with mental problems can fix those mental problems, many documented cases of that happening. (edit: corrected language)
pdkl95 8y ago
> Have you ever had someone close to you commit suicide? Yes. My girlfriend who lived with me for several years. > If so, is that truly a better outcome than undergoing ECT? Yes, absolutely, for the reasons imperio59 and others have already described. You don't solve mental issues by injuring the brain until they the symptoms are no longer obvious to outside observers. Also, using this type of emotional manipulation that presupposes the false dichotomy of "ECT or suicide" is highly offensive. There are many potential options, and you do not know what someone will do with or without any particular "treatment".

DanBC 8y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21609510 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21609510 > We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in mild to moderate and severe depression, and in treatment-resistant depression? Which interventions reduce relapse rates? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: > We found 88 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. This meta analysis found that ECT was beneficial. The point of ECT is not to act as a long lasting cure, it's to get someone out of a depressive episode so that they can engage in work to treat their depression - it's a life saving short term intervention that gives them time and space to do other work. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/speed-of-remission-in-elderly-patients-with-depression-electroconvulsive-therapy-v-medication/CB2FDDA34E329F72229609FCF85D0BC8 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...

jdietrich 8y ago

>How can you say that "the alternative is unbearable"is beyond me, unless you're saying it's better to become mentally disabled than suffer from depression? Most people who would be considered eligible for ECT are actively suicidal; if they are released from hospital, they are almost certain to attempt suicide. Some are suffering from catatonic depression and are too depressed to perform even the most basic tasks, often including eating and drinking. The overwhelming majority are being held on secure psychiatric wards for their own protection. The alternative to ECT is usually death. If you don't understand this (or refuse to acknowledge it), then you don't understand why doctors continue to use ECT. Chemotherapy is horrible. It makes you constantly and violently nauseous, it makes your hair fall out, it can cause lasting physical damage and the side-effects are sometimes fatal. It's horrible, but it's better than the alternative, which is dying of cancer. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that ECT is a life-saving medical intervention. The first link you posted is a highly biased summary of evidence compiled by CCHR, a known Scientology front group; Scientology opposes all forms of psychiatry, largely because of the belief that its own (completely unproven) method of Dianetics is capable of resolving all forms of mental distress. Please see DanBC's comment for a more accurate summary of the evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry Your second link is to a citizens petition orchestrated by a law firm; the petition was rejected by the FDA on the basis of the evidence. https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2016-P-2559-0029&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2...