Good grief...I missed the Wikipedia reference!! Wikipedia has about as much academic credibility as my cat...and yes, I know about the Britannia comparison study.

“Invountary ECT, however, is routinely carried out throughout Australia and, as Sam Westgarth's article shows, is increasing at an alarming rate.”

Sam’s article doesn’t show anything of the sort: it’s an opinion piece that has largely been “researched” through the least reliable parts of the Net, the Daily Telegraph, a couple of vested interest groups, a blogger and a couple of patients.

“ECT can be administered irresponsibly.." etc etc.

I spent three years working as a medical researcher in Sydney. Hospital ethics committees are incredibly scrupulous, there is oversight from NH&MRC, and they rely on a battery of checks and balances. They would be exceedingly hard to circumvent without collaboration from a group of health professionals trying to jeopardise patient health for no apparent reason.

Sam’s remarks about “what causes depression”, what “most psychiatrists” believe and suicides following ECT treatment are motherhood statements that are largely drivel.

I suppose the most distressing aspect of this publication is that is may increase the numbers of well-intentioned but ill-informed individuals getting involved in issues they know nothing about.

The real implication of that is that people who *could* benefit from this treatment – and most patients do, despite its faults and problems and questions – may be denied it.

On the upside, and in light of my own history, this has reminded me to advise a couple of close doctor friends that in the event of the question being asked, I would want to want to run the risk of ECT if the only other option was serious and unremitting depression. (Lest my health care ever get into the hands of anyone like Sam...)

(My Oxford dictionary suggests that Sancho’s point is correct...albeit a fine and debatable line...!)

Eljay's comments about my article are an example of the 'wolve' mentality- which seek to discredit whole schools of thought.
1. There are various stats about the number of people who will experience depression 'in a lifetime'- 1 in 4 was the highest estimate- and while this does not mean that 1 in 4 will receive ECT it does mean that there are an ever increasing number of people who could be 'candidates' for ECT.
2. ECT.org believes all medications or treatments should be voluntary. (Doctors for eg, like to compare mental health issues to physiological conditions- if someone had a heart problem for instance, no one can force them to have an operation, but through informed consent you may be able to persuade them that it is in their interests.) And...If one is 'confused' and forgetful before ECT surely they should not be after the procedure...

EL jay cont....3. It is irrelevant that you think I am semi-informed... And just say I was, it would have been no help trying to contact an expert or practitioner of ECT- would it?
Besides- A doctor working in the public service has a duty to inform and liase with the general public!
- i) also you admit yourself that ect reduces IQ- if one has to be dumb to be happy- then what a sad world we live in.
ii)sure it is wrong to leave people suffering- but when some people have bad experiences and continued pain after ECT it becomes self defeating, and more than not other methods like counselling have not been applied....--While the article had a negative bent this was not due to any semi-information but because of new information about ect.

I think the use of ECT is a deplorable practice. Common sense would tell you that putting that much electricity through a person's brain is not a good idea. Without any understanding of the mechanism by which this treatment is supposed to help people, psychiatrists are nothing better than the snake oil salesmen of the 19th century.

It is deeply disturbing to me that psychiatrists appear to want to play god and seem to have less concern for their patients than for their own career and legacy. We are only now discovering that SSRI's can have incredibly serious side effects sometimes worse than the original illness, but psychiatrists are always looking for that silver bullet which will fix everything.

Obviously depression could be easily treated with the use of opiates if we really wanted, except that it would cause dependence; drug dependence is of course acceptable when it is to psychiatric drugs like SSRI's or lithium or thorazine or some such thing.

Sure ECT might make patients less depressed, but I'm sure a lobotomy would as well.

sam_swestgarth said "- i) also you admit yourself that ect reduces IQ- if one has to be dumb to be happy- then what a sad world we live in."

Sam - he quite clearly said nothing of the sort.

This is Eljay's quote:

"ECT is a last-resort form of treatment that isn’t well understood, granted. However, the point that has been completely missed here is that the forms of depression that make people a candidate for ECT is also “barbaric”. It is vastly worse than one would imagine. My experience resulted in a shift from an IQ of around 135-140 to an IQ of perhaps 85-90. Some days I struggled to tie my shoes."

Since you're having trouble interpreting that, let me do it for you. What he is saying is that his DEPRESSION was so debilitating that it reduced his IQ to that level, not the ECT!

Yes Tom Paine, it is deplorable- shooting an electric current thru the barely understood brain is no more advanced than the Mayan practise of cutting a hole in the skull to let out evil spirits. I've meet a few 'droids over the years, allegedly cured of their afflictions- give us a break!

Since first reading about Harry Bailey Ive kept a weather open for stories in this area and have concluded that 1. there is no real science to back up this mis-treatment and 2. proponents are always at best shrill and at worst loopy and 3.it is hard to imagine anything that robs a person of their dignity more than this treatment.