I would be one of those folks with the axe to grind. That axe would be the "involuntary treatment" axe, although it's a bit of a two-headed axe with the backside being about "informed consent", in contrast to which exists psychiatric treatment as it is generally described by the profession to those on the receiving end of it, which is generally far short of fully informed even when it is otherwise truly consenting.
quote:
On ECT ("electroshock" therapy): first, most of those talking about ECT have clearly gotten most of their information about the practice from watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. ECT is a "last resort" procedure, and is only done in times of acute, serious psychiatric breakdown. We're talking about people who are going to kill themselves, or severely harm those around them, unless immediate action is taken. These are people who are completely unresponsive to medicine; obviously, other treatment is exhausted long before ECT is considered.
That isn't true. There are very few barricades to its use. There is absolutely no requirement that the recipient be a person who is suicidal or actively dangerous to others, even for its involuntary imposition. Do you wish to read the policies for the various New York State public bins that do ECT? We obtained them via FOIA and you can read them all here including the circumstances under which the institution is to seek judicial OK to impose electroshock against patients' will. There are a few circumstances under which they regard it to be contraindicated but a "treatment of last resort" is is, unfortunately, not. It should be.
quote:
Also, the thing about ECT is that it *is* effective. The resultant neurological effects aren't caused by "brain damage", although the jury is still out on what ECT does from a physiological standpoint.
Yeah. "We don't know how it works, but we're sure that the results we observe are not caused by the brain damage that we insist does not happen" is a line we' ve heard often. We've been pushing for long-term studies but the legislation we've sought has not been passed. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to defend concluding that running electricity through the brain doesn't do much damage without some evidence that it doesn't. There is certainly some evidence indicating that it does.
quote:
For whatever reason, ECT acts to "reboot" the brain.
Oh please.
quote:
and can cause improperly functioning portions of the brain to revert to more standard modes of function
But not vice versa, eh?
quote:
Unfortunately, this will often not last, and ECT may need to be repeated. However, as said, we are talking about otherwise "lost cases".
No we are not. This last link takes you to first person accounts, some by people who say they benefitted. Some by people who say it ruined their life. I dare you to dismiss them all as "otherwise lost causes"!
See my next post on this same thread
See my previous post on this same thread
Original SDMB thread Psychiatrists: Glorified Drug Dealers?