So my point is mostly that this particular article is not a balanced view of ECT. It is also an area which is very easy to have a strong emotive response to. T

So my point is mostly that this particular article is not a balanced view of ECT. It is also an area which is very easy to have a strong emotive response to. This article is an appeal to that emotional response through its language throughout, and given the authors background views it is clear it’s not a balanced view. I think this is summed up best by the quote “Even before knowing the research on ECT, I’d had a gut reaction that something was dreadfully wrong”. I wonder if the author has made his mind up before reviewing the evidence due to his initial emotive response to it. My main aim is to point out that this is not the view of all experts, and given it is still recommended after review by panels of experts on a national level (the UK NICE guidelines). This is what I refer to as balance of evidence in most guidelines. There is no incentive to continue using it in if it doesn’t work. The evidence base is not clear, but that’s true for a lot of interventions in medicine. I don’t have any strong views for or against ECT personally, but I object to the one sided nature of the article. It feels like a crusade against ECT. I agree with your points about homeopathy, but the difference is here that the prevailing opinion of the experts is that it is helpful in some situations. That is why I would say it is difference.