What You Should Know About ECT

Question:

*Statement of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, an organization of over 500 people who have received ECT. These are the common experiences we have all reported that have resulted from Shock Treatment.* *It is found on the web at: http://www.harborside.com/home/e/equinox/ect.htm If you are considering the possibility of ECT you need to be fully aware of what you are getting into; if you have already had ECT you should know what is being done to minimize abusive practices in its use and to create well-informed patients who will be knowledgeable concerning the risks to which they are submitting themselves. The following mission statement of the Committee for Truth In Psychiatry (CTIP) and the accompanying, survivor-created, Informed Consent Statement have been graciously provided by Linda Andre, an ECT survivor, activist, and director of the CTIP. The additional articles, written by Dennis Cauchon and copyrighted by the Gannett Co., Inc., were first published December 6, 1995, in "USA Today" following a 4-month investigation of ECT and its proponents. They constitute a groundbreaking, much-needed, and long-overdue expose of this destructive (but financially profitable) practice. *Patients Often Aren’t Informed of Full Danger *Quick Results Often Fade Just As Fast *For Patients, Treatment Value Varies *How Shock Therapy Works *Doctor’s Financial Stake In Shock Therapy These USA Today articles can be found on the web at: http://www.harborside.com/home/e/equinox/ect1.htm COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN PSYCHIATRY The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, or CTIP, is a national organization of over 500 former electric shock patients. None of us was truthfully informed about the nature or consequences of this treatment before consenting to it, and we have pooled our experience-gained knowledge to provide truthful information about it for future psychiatric patients. Over the years, many individual recipients of "electroconvulsive therapy" (ECT) (shock treatment) have related their personal experiences, verbally or in writing, emphasizing whatever aspects were most important in each one’s special circumstances. What the CTIP has done as a group is to highlight and emphasize the common demoninators in the shock experience. Accordingly, though our members differ widely in the details of their own stories, including how they got into ECT and how much good or (more often) harm it did them, we can agree on the most certain effects of ECT and that future patients should be informed of them before they give their consent to it. Following are the most important points we make: * If a person is in a state of physical suffering of nervous origin, ECT will almost certainly relieve it temporarily. ECT relaxes the nervous system and the relaxing effect lasts from a couple of days to a couple of months. Sometimes people stay well after the relaxing effect has worn off, but, typically, they quickly relapse. * Regardless of any beneficial effect, there is always a permanently effect on memory. This consists of erasure of a good deal of pre-shock memory and dimming of more, and it frequently includes also a permanent reduction in retentiveness for post-shock experience and learning. * These two effects in combination—the temporary feeling of well-being and the permanent harm to memory—imply that ECT "works" by damaging the brain. These are the classic symptoms of acute brain injury by any means—strokes, asphyxiation, concussion, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc. In all these events, the patient feels very well for a while but can’t remember. If further evidence were needed of the principle at work in ECT’s beneficial effect, it could be noted that the memory loss from ECT has always the distinctive pattern of brain damage forgetting (recent memories hardest hit) and that ECT is sometimes followed by other brain damage phenomena (examples common among our members are impairment of sense of direction and a touch of aphasia, or difficulty saying the words you meant to say). As a vehicle for communicating these few salient points about ECT to future patients, we have incorporated them (along with other information) in a model informed consent statement which we should like to see sponsored by the FDA or some governmental body. All CTIP members have endorsed the statement. ORIGIN, HISTORY, FORMAT AND FUTURE Our Committee was formed in l984, with 17 founding members, to participate in the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory proceedings concerning ECT. FDA had classified the ECT device or shock machine in the highest risk class of medical devices, Class III, which classification earmarked ECT for a safety investigation; and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had subsequently petitioned FDA to reclassify the device to Class II, which action would constitute recognizing ECT as a safe treatment without an investigation. The FDA was preparing to grant the APA’s petition when the CTIP came in to oppose reclassification and to press for an investigation. We were confident that an impartial scientific investigation would confirm in physical terms what is apparent from ECT’s emotional and memory effects: that it is inherently brain damaging. Throughout the rest of the 1980s, the CTIP both enlarged its shock patient membership and also became the central contact for other individuals and organizations who urged an FDA investigation of shock treatment, including all fifty of the state Protection and Advocacy agencies. Expansion of the CTIP was based on its informed consent statement. Any former shock patient who endorses it is a member. Membership imposes no duties or dues, but every endorsement stregthens the patient voice. And since we were bound together by agreement on the fundamental of the shock experience, we could operate without elected officers. Any member who chose to be active could speak, write, or deal with the FDA in the name of all. With only such an informal kind of organization, we managed for six years to forestall action toward reclassification. Ultimately, however, the FDA bent to the stronger pressure from the psychiatrists and published in the Federal Register of September 5, 1990 a "proposal to reclassify" the ECT device to Class II. Since then, the classification (and investigation) have been "on hold", with no reclassification or investigation having yet taken place. Regardless of when or in what direction the FDA may move, the CTIP is continuing to work for truthfully informed consent. The problem we alone address is that patients throughout the country are routinely misinformed and misled as to the results to be expected from shock treatment. At the same time, regulatory actions concerning ECT are under way in various state and local governments, instigated in some cases by ex-patients and in some cases by the electroshock industry. In any of these arenas, the opportunity exists for CTIP members to step forward and push for a requirement for truthful information, for they speak with the authority and credibility of a concerted voice of experience—a voice which grows stronger with the addition of each new member. If you have had ECT, and if you would like to help protect future patients from consent by deception, we hope you will add the weight of your endorsement to our proposed informed consent statement. Both electronic and snail-mail versions of the statement and membership form are available. If you have questions, please call or write the CTIP Director, Linda Andre, at P.O. Box 1214, New York, NY 10003, phone 212 473-4786. INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT This is the first and only informed consent statement about shock treatment (ECT) written by persons who had shock. It has been endorsed by over 500 ex-ECT patients. We call ourselves the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry because our purpose is to work for truthful informed consent for future patients. We would like to see the federal government, through the FDA, or states through their Offices of Mental Health, adopt this statement. What is ECT good for? ECT is good for the intense physical suffering that goes with derangement of the nervous system. Such derangement can come about either through an overload of normal emotion (that is a nervous breakdown) or by imbalances in body chemicals that affect emotions. What ECT does is to produce profound emotional relaxation. The patient sleeps and eats well and her or his body has an opportunity for rest and repair. When the relaxing effect wears off, which is in a few days or weeks, the patient may remain well or she may relapse. What Is ECT And How Is It Given? Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), also known as shock treatment, consists of a series of grand mal epileptic seizures induced by electric shocks through the brain. The essence of a grand mal epileptic seizure is the intensely rapid "firing" of every brain cell. In a natural seizure this activity of the brain causes the body to thrash about wildly, but when a seizure is induced in ECT the movements of the body are largely suppressed by a drug. In either case, if a complete grand mal seizure is occurring in the brain, the person is unconscious. An ECT treatment is usually given in the morning before breakfast. First the patient receives an injection to reduce secretions in the mouth. Then she is taken to the treatment room, where she is given a general anesthetic through a vein in the arm. This takes effect quickly and is followed by another drug through the same needle, this being the one that suppresses muscle movement. The anesthetic is not necessary for the shock treatment as such, for the shock would produce unconsciousness, but it is given to spare the patient the feeling of becoming paralyzed. Next, two electrodes are applied to … read more »

Response:

Unzap, why back so soon?…..and with the same diatribe….

Response:

ECT worked for me. Regards, John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *Statement of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, an organization of over 500 people who have received ECT. These are the common experiences we have all reported that have resulted from Shock Treatment.* *It is found on the web at: http://www.harborside.com/home/e/equinox/ect.htm If you are considering the possibility of ECT you need to be fully aware of what you are getting into; if you have already had ECT you should know what is being done to minimize abusive practices in its use and to create well-informed patients who will be knowledgeable concerning the risks to which they are submitting themselves. The following mission statement of the Committee for Truth In Psychiatry (CTIP) and the accompanying, survivor-created, Informed Consent Statement have been graciously provided by Linda Andre, an ECT survivor, activist, and director of the CTIP. The additional articles, written by Dennis Cauchon and copyrighted by the Gannett Co., Inc., were first published December 6, 1995, in "USA Today" following a 4-month investigation of ECT and its proponents. They constitute a groundbreaking, much-needed, and long-overdue expose of this destructive (but financially profitable) practice. *Patients Often Aren’t Informed of Full Danger *Quick Results Often Fade Just As Fast *For Patients, Treatment Value Varies *How Shock Therapy Works *Doctor’s Financial Stake In Shock Therapy These USA Today articles can be found on the web at: http://www.harborside.com/home/e/equinox/ect1.htm COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN PSYCHIATRY The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, or CTIP, is a national organization of over 500 former electric shock patients. None of us was truthfully informed about the nature or consequences of this treatment before consenting to it, and we have pooled our experience-gained knowledge to provide truthful information about it for future psychiatric patients. Over the years, many individual recipients of "electroconvulsive therapy" (ECT) (shock treatment) have related their personal experiences, verbally or in writing, emphasizing whatever aspects were most important in each one’s special circumstances. What the CTIP has done as a group is to highlight and emphasize the common demoninators in the shock experience. Accordingly, though our members differ widely in the details of their own stories, including how they got into ECT and how much good or (more often) harm it did them, we can agree on the most certain effects of ECT and that future patients should be informed of them before they give their consent to it. Following are the most important points we make: * If a person is in a state of physical suffering of nervous origin, ECT will almost certainly relieve it temporarily. ECT relaxes the nervous system and the relaxing effect lasts from a couple of days to a couple of months. Sometimes people stay well after the relaxing effect has worn off, but, typically, they quickly relapse. * Regardless of any beneficial effect, there is always a permanently effect on memory. This consists of erasure of a good deal of pre-shock memory and dimming of more, and it frequently includes also a permanent reduction in retentiveness for post-shock experience and learning. * These two effects in combination—the temporary feeling of well-being and the permanent harm to memory—imply that ECT "works" by damaging the brain. These are the classic symptoms of acute brain injury by any means—strokes, asphyxiation, concussion, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc. In all these events, the patient feels very well for a while but can’t remember. If further evidence were needed of the principle at work in ECT’s beneficial effect, it could be noted that the memory loss from ECT has always the distinctive pattern of brain damage forgetting (recent memories hardest hit) and that ECT is sometimes followed by other brain damage phenomena (examples common among our members are impairment of sense of direction and a touch of aphasia, or difficulty saying the words you meant to say). As a vehicle for communicating these few salient points about ECT to future patients, we have incorporated them (along with other information) in a model informed consent statement which we should like to see sponsored by the FDA or some governmental body. All CTIP members have endorsed the statement. ORIGIN, HISTORY, FORMAT AND FUTURE Our Committee was formed in l984, with 17 founding members, to participate in the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory proceedings concerning ECT. FDA had classified the ECT device or shock machine in the highest risk class of medical devices, Class III, which classification earmarked ECT for a safety investigation; and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had subsequently petitioned FDA to reclassify the device to Class II, which action would constitute recognizing ECT as a safe treatment without an investigation. The FDA was preparing to grant the APA’s petition when the CTIP came in to oppose reclassification and to press for an investigation. We were confident that an impartial scientific investigation would confirm in physical terms what is apparent from ECT’s emotional and memory effects: that it is inherently brain damaging. Throughout the rest of the 1980s, the CTIP both enlarged its shock patient membership and also became the central contact for other individuals and organizations who urged an FDA investigation of shock treatment, including all fifty of the state Protection and Advocacy agencies. Expansion of the CTIP was based on its informed consent statement. Any former shock patient who endorses it is a member. Membership imposes no duties or dues, but every endorsement stregthens the patient voice. And since we were bound together by agreement on the fundamental of the shock experience, we could operate without elected officers. Any member who chose to be active could speak, write, or deal with the FDA in the name of all. With only such an informal kind of organization, we managed for six years to forestall action toward reclassification. Ultimately, however, the FDA bent to the stronger pressure from the psychiatrists and published in the Federal Register of September 5, 1990 a "proposal to reclassify" the ECT device to Class II. Since then, the classification (and investigation) have been "on hold", with no reclassification or investigation having yet taken place. Regardless of when or in what direction the FDA may move, the CTIP is continuing to work for truthfully informed consent. The problem we alone address is that patients throughout the country are routinely misinformed and misled as to the results to be expected from shock treatment. At the same time, regulatory actions concerning ECT are under way in various state and local governments, instigated in some cases by ex-patients and in some cases by the electroshock industry. In any of these arenas, the opportunity exists for CTIP members to step forward and push for a requirement for truthful information, for they speak with the authority and credibility of a concerted voice of experience—a voice which grows stronger with the addition of each new member. If you have had ECT, and if you would like to help protect future patients from consent by deception, we hope you will add the weight of your endorsement to our proposed informed consent statement. Both electronic and snail-mail versions of the statement and membership form are available. If you have questions, please call or write the CTIP Director, Linda Andre, at P.O. Box 1214, New York, NY 10003, phone 212 473-4786. INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT This is the first and only informed consent statement about shock treatment (ECT) written by persons who had shock. It has been endorsed by over 500 ex-ECT patients. We call ourselves the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry because our purpose is to work for truthful informed consent for future patients. We would like to see the federal government, through the FDA, or states through their Offices of Mental Health, adopt this statement. What is ECT good for? ECT is good for the intense physical suffering that goes with derangement of the nervous system. Such derangement can come about either through an overload of normal emotion (that is a nervous breakdown) or by imbalances in body chemicals that affect emotions. What ECT does is to produce profound emotional relaxation. The patient sleeps and eats well and her or his body has an opportunity for rest and repair. When the relaxing effect wears off, which is in a few days or weeks, the patient may remain well or she may relapse. What Is ECT And How Is It Given? Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), also known as shock treatment, consists of a series of grand mal epileptic seizures induced by electric shocks through the brain. The essence of a grand mal epileptic seizure is the intensely rapid "firing" of every brain cell. In a natural seizure this activity of the brain causes the body to thrash about wildly, but when a seizure is induced in ECT the movements of the body are largely suppressed by a drug. In either case, if a complete grand mal seizure is occurring in the brain, the person is unconscious. An ECT treatment is usually given in the morning before breakfast. First the patient receives an injection to reduce secretions in the mouth. Then she is taken to the treatment room, where she is given a general anesthetic through a vein in the arm. This takes effect quickly and is followed by another drug

Response:

Here we go again…….Jesus!!!

I wasn’t the one who started it… but I will always rebut bullshit. In any event the issue isn’t going away. Nor will discussion of it if I’ve got anything to say on the subject. <snipped – needed toilet paper

Strange, since you’ve obviously got yer head jammed so far up yer own hole that nothing else can enter or leave. — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962 "I told the priest: ‘Don’t count on any second coming… God got His ass kicked the first time He came down here slumming…’ " –Concrete Blonde, from their album Bloodletting

Response:

Here we go again…….Jesus!!! <snipped – needed toilet paper

Response:

ECT worked for me. Regards, John Take a closer look… if your memory still permits you, that is. —

Jeezis, one person says it works for him, and you can’t even handle accepting that. You guys are so tiring. You claim to want to present all this proof, but how dare someone have a dissenting opinion or even a positive experience. Isn’t part of showing "the truth", providing BOTH positive and negative experiences? Kind of hard to do that when you trash the people who say it worked for them. Nik "So it’s Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy" Nick Cave, Murder Ballads Home Page – http://members.aol.com/niknik7/main.html

Response:

ECT worked for me. Regards, John

Take a closer look… if your memory still permits you, that is. — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962 ‘I long for the day when verbally condoning acts of torture or abuse will be considered every bit as heinous a crime as is actually committing these acts’

Response:

-snipped the rest of the message- I feel like one of those kiosks. Like someone just stapled something on me. Sincerely Stewart — The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self (remove the SPAMBLOCK)

Response:

I live in Peekskill NY BUTHEAD…come on over and we’ll talk about it

Response:

ECT worked for me. Regards, John Take a closer look… if your memory still permits you, that is.

My God that was rude. Thank goodness you don’t mind it when other people say things like that to you concerning your own opinions…. Sincerely Stewart — The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self (remove the SPAMBLOCK)

Response:

My God that was rude. Thank goodness you don’t mind it when other people say things like that to you concerning your own opinions…. Sincerely Stewart

Just citing a fact about shock in a way that couldn’t be ignored. If you choose to take offense that’s your problem, not mine. Actually, I thought the way I phrased it was quite polite… you should see me when I’m in a bad mood. <grin — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962 ‘Lock ‘em up and throw away the key, boys, the Joneses are not like you or me, lock ‘em up tight, ’cause if they had the chance they might show us that we’re wrong and that’s –Spirit Of The West, from their album Save This House

Response:

Content snipped When I was hospitalized with mania I spoke with a young woman about her ECT. She suffered from severe depression and had been treated many times without success. In therapy sessions she would describe horrific child abuse at the hands of her parents in the manner of an impartial third party. Utterly devoid of any emotion. Try as we did we (the other patients) were unable to help her to get past her "intellectualization". This woman was brilliant in intelligence but her emotional state was flat. In describing her experience of ECT she calmly told me that the doctors had had to administer curare to prevent severe muscle tearing. She described this in a detached clinical manner as if she were the doctor discussing another patient. I don’t know whether the treatments improved her emotional state or whether she gained access to her deepest emotions which she repressed due to trauma. I do know that she sought ECT as a last resort because she was a talented amateur painter and she could not find the motivation to paint. Maureen

Response:

If someone says something worked for them, you have NO right to suggest they take a closer look. d – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ECT worked for me. Regards, John Take a closer look… if your memory still permits you, that is. — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962 ‘I long for the day when verbally condoning acts of torture or abuse will be considered every bit as heinous a crime as is actually committing these acts’

Response:

If someone says something worked for them, you have NO right to suggest they take a closer look.

I’ll suggest what I damn well please, especially when I get the impression that someone’s ‘experiences’ aren’t necessarily what they appear to be on the surface… or if such ‘experiences’ are being used to justify the torture of the innocent. ECT _is_ torture – and as far as I’m concerned it should be banned. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Response:

| |Graeme’s a funny boy. And unknowledgably nasty. | |Regards, | |John | |I’m not laughing… and while we’re on the subject, I personally |consider it pretty ‘nasty’ to patronize someone by referring to them |in the third person rather than addressing them directly. Such is the |behavior of a prize-winning asshole in my book. Pity there isn’t a NG |entitled alt.support.delusions-of-superiority because you’d fit in |beautifully there. | |I believe someone yesterday accused _me_ of being ‘rude’… SHEESH!! |Talk about the pot calling the kettle… | Listen…for a man who uses a dictionary to read a superman comic book, you just don’t get it. You post these lame posts every couple of weeks to force your point of view on everyone. You crosspost to newsgroups which in itself is RUDE. I’m sure if you have something intellegent to say, folks would listen. Right now, this pathetic little post of yours is laughable. I believe its time for you to come to the real world of logic.

Response:

Here we go again……. I wasn’t the one who started it… but I will always rebut bullshit.

. — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962

Typical and vintage Graeme. His mind is so made up and he is so devoid of the ability to prove anything that he might as well send a post and then push a button to repeat it. Would save effort on his part. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Graeme’s a funny boy. And unknowledgably nasty. Regards, John

I’m not laughing… and while we’re on the subject, I personally consider it pretty ‘nasty’ to patronize someone by referring to them in the third person rather than addressing them directly. Such is the behavior of a prize-winning asshole in my book. Pity there isn’t a NG entitled alt.support.delusions-of-superiority because you’d fit in beautifully there. I believe someone yesterday accused _me_ of being ‘rude’… SHEESH!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle… — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962 "I told the priest: ‘Don’t count on any second coming… God got His ass kicked the first time He came down here slumming…’ " –Concrete Blonde, from their album Bloodletting

Response:

[snipped shocking post] sorry…. yours from the bottom of the pond, cupojoe… =I am in that temper that if I were under water =I would scarcely kick to come to the top. =John Keats

Response:

My God that was rude. Thank goodness you don’t mind it when other people say things like that to you concerning your own opinions…. Just citing a fact about shock in a way that couldn’t be ignored. If you choose to take offense that’s your problem, not mine. Actually, I thought the way I phrased it was quite polite… you should see me when I’m in a bad mood. <grin

Oh. Thank God. And here I thought your opinions about what are facts and what are not facts were total bullshit that could be completely ignored as the rantings of a lunatic because you had some kind of mental disfunction. Sincerely Stewart — The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self (remove the SPAMBLOCK)

Response:

Graeme’s a funny boy. And unknowledgably nasty. Regards, John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ECT worked for me. Regards, John Take a closer look… if your memory still permits you, that is. — Graeme Bacque #14909975 on ICQ <http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1962 ‘I long for the day when verbally condoning acts of torture or abuse will be considered every bit as heinous a crime as is actually committing these acts’

Response:

Listen…for a man who uses a dictionary to read a superman comic book, you just don’t get it. You post these lame posts every couple of weeks to force your point of view on everyone.

How can I ‘force’ you to do anything when I don’t even know where you are or have any access to you aside from what you _freely choose_ to read on the ‘net? For fuck sakes take responsibility for your own actions and quit passing the buck! You crosspost to newsgroups which in itself is RUDE.

I didn’t start the thread. All I did was hit ‘reply.’ I’m sure if you have something intellegent to say,

In the eye of the beholder, Dood… I’m sure many ppl think _you’re_ a total fuckwad who shouldn’t be allowed out without a keeper so don’t be so quick to judge. Such behavior has a bad habit of blowing up in your face. folks would listen. Right now, this pathetic little post of yours is laughable. I believe its time for you to come to the real world of logic.

Once more, with feeling… ‘logic’ is in the eye of the beholder. why not admit that you couldn’t handle what I was saying rather than choosing to negate it through insults and by questioning my state of mind? Sounds like you’ve got a massive ego problem happening here…

Response:

Graeme’s a funny boy. And unknowledgably nasty. Regards, John I’m not laughing… and while we’re on the subject, I personally consider it pretty ‘nasty’ to patronize someone by referring to them in the third person rather than addressing them directly. Such is the behavior of a prize-winning asshole in my book. Pity there isn’t a NG entitled alt.support.delusions-of-superiority because you’d fit in beautifully there. I believe someone yesterday accused _me_ of being ‘rude’… SHEESH!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle…

Ummm, *I* am the person who accused you of being ‘rude’ yesterday. (Tho I suppose there may well have been other’s, I don’t know.) Anyway, the reason for my response here is to point out that this is not a case of "the pot calling the kettle black", unless this guy Zao here is the person who called you rude. (If Zao did in fact call you rude, then I would agree that it seems to me to be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"). Alternatively, another way in which this response of Zao’s could be thought of as a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" would be if you were unable to see me as a different person than Zao. While you may see me as the same person as Zao, I tend to take offense at that. (No offense ment to Zao. It’s just an ego boundary protection thing with me.) Sincerely Stewart — The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self (remove the SPAMBLOCK)

Response:

Some call ECT brain-damaging primitive torture, others cite dramatic evidence of anti-depressive value in saving lives. If pain is experienced, it is apparently forgotten. Perhaps the MEMORY of pain is not necessary for the anti-depression benefit; but its absence does aid in patient acceptance of repeat treatments. What if we simply applied a cane forcefully to the posterior of the depressed patient, on the theory that guilt might somehow be an agent of depression? What if double blind trials proved this to be an effective treatment? Could we, as an enlightened society, accept that? The advantage would be the lack of amnesia, and the consequent facility in integrating the penitent experience with feelings of guilt (or whatever feeling was triggering the need.) The drugs and the shock obviously do greater and more permanent physical damage, but we have some unscientific puritanical problems that make us more afraid of pandering to masochists than we are of accepting thousand of annual suicides. As an undergraduate, my proposals for studying this question were met with great trepidation and deprecation. While the theory may not fit with the accepted tradition, if it’s true, many lives would be saved. BillyJack Cassedy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *Statement of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, an organization of over 500 people who have received ECT. These are the common experiences we have all reported that have resulted from Shock Treatment.* *It is found on the web at: http://www.harborside.com/home/e/equinox/ect.htm If you are considering the possibility of ECT you need to be fully aware of what you are getting into; if you have already had ECT you should know what is being done to minimize abusive practices in its use and to create well-informed patients who will be knowledgeable concerning the risks to which they are submitting themselves. The following mission statement of the Committee for Truth In Psychiatry (CTIP) and the accompanying, survivor-created, Informed Consent Statement have been graciously provided by Linda Andre, an ECT survivor, activist, and director of the CTIP. The additional articles, written by Dennis Cauchon and copyrighted by the Gannett Co., Inc., were first published December 6, 1995, in "USA Today" following a 4-month investigation of ECT and its proponents. They constitute a groundbreaking, much-needed, and long-overdue expose of this destructive (but financially profitable) practice. *Patients Often Aren’t Informed of Full Danger *Quick Results Often Fade Just As Fast *For Patients, Treatment Value Varies *How Shock Therapy Works *Doctor’s Financial Stake In Shock Therapy These USA Today articles can be found on the web at: http://www.harborside.com/home/e/equinox/ect1.htm COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN PSYCHIATRY The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, or CTIP, is a national organization of over 500 former electric shock patients. None of us was truthfully informed about the nature or consequences of this treatment before consenting to it, and we have pooled our experience-gained knowledge to provide truthful information about it for future psychiatric patients. Over the years, many individual recipients of "electroconvulsive therapy" (ECT) (shock treatment) have related their personal experiences, verbally or in writing, emphasizing whatever aspects were most important in each one’s special circumstances. What the CTIP has done as a group is to highlight and emphasize the common demoninators in the shock experience. Accordingly, though our members differ widely in the details of their own stories, including how they got into ECT and how much good or (more often) harm it did them, we can agree on the most certain effects of ECT and that future patients should be informed of them before they give their consent to it. Following are the most important points we make: * If a person is in a state of physical suffering of nervous origin, ECT will almost certainly relieve it temporarily. ECT relaxes the nervous system and the relaxing effect lasts from a couple of days to a couple of months. Sometimes people stay well after the relaxing effect has worn off, but, typically, they quickly relapse. * Regardless of any beneficial effect, there is always a permanently effect on memory. This consists of erasure of a good deal of pre-shock memory and dimming of more, and it frequently includes also a permanent reduction in retentiveness for post-shock experience and learning. * These two effects in combination—the temporary feeling of well-being and the permanent harm to memory—imply that ECT "works" by damaging the brain. These are the classic symptoms of acute brain injury by any means—strokes, asphyxiation, concussion, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc. In all these events, the patient feels very well for a while but can’t remember. If further evidence were needed of the principle at work in ECT’s beneficial effect, it could be noted that the memory loss from ECT has always the distinctive pattern of brain damage forgetting (recent memories hardest hit) and that ECT is sometimes followed by other brain damage phenomena (examples common among our members are impairment of sense of direction and a touch of aphasia, or difficulty saying the words you meant to say). As a vehicle for communicating these few salient points about ECT to future patients, we have incorporated them (along with other information) in a model informed consent statement which we should like to see sponsored by the FDA or some governmental body. All CTIP members have endorsed the statement. ORIGIN, HISTORY, FORMAT AND FUTURE Our Committee was formed in l984, with 17 founding members, to participate in the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory proceedings concerning ECT. FDA had classified the ECT device or shock machine in the highest risk class of medical devices, Class III, which classification earmarked ECT for a safety investigation; and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had subsequently petitioned FDA to reclassify the device to Class II, which action would constitute recognizing ECT as a safe treatment without an investigation. The FDA was preparing to grant the APA’s petition when the CTIP came in to oppose reclassification and to press for an investigation. We were confident that an impartial scientific investigation would confirm in physical terms what is apparent from ECT’s emotional and memory effects: that it is inherently brain damaging. Throughout the rest of the 1980s, the CTIP both enlarged its shock patient membership and also became the central contact for other individuals and organizations who urged an FDA investigation of shock treatment, including all fifty of the state Protection and Advocacy agencies. Expansion of the CTIP was based on its informed consent statement. Any former shock patient who endorses it is a member. Membership imposes no duties or dues, but every endorsement stregthens the patient voice. And since we were bound together by agreement on the fundamental of the shock experience, we could operate without elected officers. Any member who chose to be active could speak, write, or deal with the FDA in the name of all. With only such an informal kind of organization, we managed for six years to forestall action toward reclassification. Ultimately, however, the FDA bent to the stronger pressure from the psychiatrists and published in the Federal Register of September 5, 1990 a "proposal to reclassify" the ECT device to Class II. Since then, the classification (and investigation) have been "on hold", with no reclassification or investigation having yet taken place. Regardless of when or in what direction the FDA may move, the CTIP is continuing to work for truthfully informed consent. The problem we alone address is that patients throughout the country are routinely misinformed and misled as to the results to be expected from shock treatment. At the same time, regulatory actions concerning ECT are under way in various state and local governments, instigated in some cases by ex-patients and in some cases by the electroshock industry. In any of these arenas, the opportunity exists for CTIP members to step forward and push for a requirement for truthful information, for they speak with the authority and credibility of a concerted voice of experience—a voice which grows stronger with the addition of each new member. If you have had ECT, and if you would like to help protect future patients from consent by deception, we hope you will add the weight of your endorsement to our proposed informed consent statement. Both electronic and snail-mail versions of the statement and membership form are available. If you have questions, please call or write the CTIP Director, Linda Andre, at P.O. Box 1214, New York, NY 10003, phone 212 473-4786. INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT This is the first and only informed consent statement about shock treatment (ECT) written by persons who had shock. It has been endorsed by over 500 ex-ECT patients. We call ourselves the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry because our purpose is to work for truthful informed consent for future patients. We would like to see the federal government, through the FDA, or states through their Offices of Mental Health, adopt this statement. What is ECT good for? ECT is good for the intense physical suffering that goes with derangement of the nervous system. Such derangement can come about either through an

Response:

While you may see me as the same person as Zao, I tend to take offense at that. (No offense ment to Zao. It’s just an ego boundary protection thing with me.) Sincerely Stewart

in here that the egos involved had no boundaries… especially when it comes to size. (Had to get your doors enlarged yet in order to fit yer Actually I wasn’t accusing any specific person… it was just that the universality of behavior I’ve previously encountered on these threads justified a universal response.

Response:

ECT works for some people……for some it does not (just like meds or traditional therapy! imagine!)…..for those it has worked for it has been a life saver…..for those it has not it has been a living nightmare……. either way its one of those things that should only be decided by the patient & their doctor & family…….its not for anybody else to shove a decision down their throats one way or another……. (i think women can agree with me about that……decision making i mean…..) susan

Response:

While you may see me as the same person as Zao, I tend to take offense at that. (No offense ment to Zao. It’s just an ego boundary protection thing with me.) in here that the egos involved had no boundaries… especially when it comes to size. (Had to get your doors enlarged yet in order to fit yer Actually I wasn’t accusing any specific person… it was just that the universality of behavior I’ve previously encountered on these threads justified a universal response.

Well, it’s a chicken and egg thing. If you don’t treat me as a separate individual, then it will likely seem to you as if I am responding just as all of the others do. To me, it is a matter of aperception fullfilling perception. (Or another somewhat similar way of saying that would be "self-fullfilling prophecy.) Or another way would be to say that "what you see is what you get". Or another way would be to say that "the response you get is to the question you asked". Or another way would be to say that we each create the world we live in. If I treat a stick of wood like a chair, then it *is* a chair (for me at least). Even if to someone else it looks like a baseball bat, and even if that other person picks it up and hits me on the head with it. I will still not likely say "hey, why’d you hit me on the head with that baseball bat". Instead I will probably say "hey, why’d you hit me on the head with that chair". Anyway, I personally would appreciate being treated like an individual person and not like a "universality of behavior". How about yourself?? What do you think?? Do you think your actions indicate that you actually want to be treated as you generally are treated?? Sincerely Stewart — The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self (remove the SPAMBLOCK)

Response:

Filed under: Activist Movement

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism