3 ms·

In any other situation ECT would be considered torture. The doctors knowingly inflict mental and physical anguish on the 'patients' with some vague hope that it

In any other situation ECT would be considered torture. The doctors knowingly inflict mental and physical anguish on the 'patients' with some vague hope that it'll help them. None of them will bear any responsibility either once the 'treatment' is shown to be a sham.

tartoran 6y ago
What is this based on? Old movies?
kaminar 6y ago
Since Drs think it's so great, they should ALL be required to undergo intense treatments themselves, before being allowed to administer. For all those fans who say it works, 1000s suffer and/or die because of it. Y'all are dang crazy.
elzbardico 6y ago
ECT doesn't involve pain or anguish. The patients are sedated.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  Except for side effects and memory loss. There have also never been any cases where the patient was awake, right? That's why the people mentioned in the article that were waiting in line tried running away, right? It was such a pleasant experience that people who couldn't fully remember it wanted to flee.
  - Delk 6y ago
    I'm not going to advocate, even in the most general sense possible, for a practice that I'm not particularly knowledgeable of. However, you literally said "and physical anguish". Patients being sedated (and given muscle relaxants in order to avoid the patients hurting themselves while under anaesthesia) would address that. GP pointed that out. Nobody will be able to say that there have never been any cases where the patient was awake, even when administered general anaesthetics, but if the anaesthesia for some reason fails, that would not be the doctors knowingly inflicting anguish. If ECT were (still) done without anaesthesia nowadays, you'd be right, but my limited understanding is that it isn't. If your understanding is different, by all means share it, but the sarcastic "no cases ever, right?" rhetoric isn't really an argument. The story of patients trying to run away definitely sounds like an involuntary application of the treatment, which certainly seems inhumane in all but perhaps the most extreme of cases. But the story was from the 1970's. Are the present day practices of administering ECT still the same? If not, present day use should not be judged based on that. I agree that side effects such as memory loss sound scary and severe, and should be taken seriously. Maybe they aren't given enough consideration. I can't really judge that since I don't know the circumstances that lead to ECT being considered. All in all, it's obviously an emotional topic, but I don't think the way you responded to GP was really fair.

tartoran 6y ago

What is this based on? Old movies?

kaminar 6y ago

Since Drs think it's so great, they should ALL be required to undergo intense treatments themselves, before being allowed to administer. For all those fans who say it works, 1000s suffer and/or die because of it. Y'all are dang crazy.

elzbardico 6y ago

ECT doesn't involve pain or anguish. The patients are sedated.

Aerroon 6y ago
Except for side effects and memory loss. There have also never been any cases where the patient was awake, right? That's why the people mentioned in the article that were waiting in line tried running away, right? It was such a pleasant experience that people who couldn't fully remember it wanted to flee.
- Delk 6y ago
  I'm not going to advocate, even in the most general sense possible, for a practice that I'm not particularly knowledgeable of. However, you literally said "and physical anguish". Patients being sedated (and given muscle relaxants in order to avoid the patients hurting themselves while under anaesthesia) would address that. GP pointed that out. Nobody will be able to say that there have never been any cases where the patient was awake, even when administered general anaesthetics, but if the anaesthesia for some reason fails, that would not be the doctors knowingly inflicting anguish. If ECT were (still) done without anaesthesia nowadays, you'd be right, but my limited understanding is that it isn't. If your understanding is different, by all means share it, but the sarcastic "no cases ever, right?" rhetoric isn't really an argument. The story of patients trying to run away definitely sounds like an involuntary application of the treatment, which certainly seems inhumane in all but perhaps the most extreme of cases. But the story was from the 1970's. Are the present day practices of administering ECT still the same? If not, present day use should not be judged based on that. I agree that side effects such as memory loss sound scary and severe, and should be taken seriously. Maybe they aren't given enough consideration. I can't really judge that since I don't know the circumstances that lead to ECT being considered. All in all, it's obviously an emotional topic, but I don't think the way you responded to GP was really fair.