{"id":3297,"date":"2024-07-15T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-07-15T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/?p=3297"},"modified":"2024-07-14T05:38:04","modified_gmt":"2024-07-14T10:38:04","slug":"cchr-applauds-california-supreme-court-decision-holding-electroshock-machine-manufacturer-liable-for-brain-damage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/2024\/07\/15\/cchr-applauds-california-supreme-court-decision-holding-electroshock-machine-manufacturer-liable-for-brain-damage\/","title":{"rendered":"CCHR Applauds California Supreme Court Decision Holding Electroshock Machine Manufacturer Liable for Brain Damage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Court concluded that company\u2019s failure to fully disclose risks of electroshock to a physician meant that the patient also did not know the risks before undergoing the procedure, which resulted in brain damage. Citizens Commission on Human Rights warns device has never been proven safe.<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

by\u00a0CCHR National Affairs Office<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Supreme Court has issued a decision in a product liability case involving an electroshock machine which establishes that patients must receive adequate disclosure of the risks of the device prior to treatment. Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) says electroshock has never been proven safe and has known risks that include brain damage and permanent memory loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit at issue concerned Somatics LLC, manufacturer of a device used by psychiatrists to deliver electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, or electroshock) to patients who may be experiencing deep depression. The electroshock machine sends a strong electrical current through brain tissue that causes convulsions, a procedure used as treatment even though it is not known how electroshock is supposed to work. Somatics was sued by a woman who had sustained brain damage from ECT treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Wisner Baum<\/a>, the law firm representing the plaintiff, Somatics \u201cdid not dispute in the lower court that its electroshock therapy (ECT) device can cause brain damage and permanent memory loss; did not dispute it failed to warn doctors of the risk of brain damage and permanent memory loss; and did not dispute that plaintiff\u2026sustained brain injury.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Somatics relied for its defense on legal precedent which had established that device manufacturers have a duty to warn physicians of the risks associated with their products but need not warn the patient of those risks.  The company presented testimony that even if it had given the physician a stronger warning, the physician still would have recommended electroshock to his patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in its ruling<\/a>, California\u2019s highest court wrote that a patient\u2019s expectations about the effects of a medical device are based on what their physicians tell them, and without adequate disclosure of risks to the physician, the physician could not give adequate disclosure to the patient. The court concluded that patients could prevail in establishing product liability \u201cby showing that the physician would have communicated the stronger warning to the patient and an objectively prudent person in the patient\u2019s position would have thereafter declined the treatment,\u201d even if the doctor continued to recommend the treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis California ruling is a win for patients who have a right to know the full extent of the potential damage from electroshock,\u201d said Anne Goedeke, president of the CCHR National Affairs Office. \u201cPatients should be informed that electroshock has never been proven safe or effective.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patients undergoing electroshock \u2013 mostly women and the elderly, but even young children \u2013 are often not being given enough information about the serious risks and lack of effectiveness of the procedure, according to professor of psychology John Read, Ph.D., who conducted an audit of patient information pamphlets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He found<\/a> that pertinent information about risks was omitted, such as the cardiovascular risks, the risk of death, the lack of evidence of long-term benefits, and the fact that it is not known how ECT is supposed to work. \u201cThe minimisation of risks is not uncommon in ECT practice and research,\u201d Read said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read disputes<\/a> claims that electroshock is highly effective, writing that no proof of that exists. \u201cThere have\u2026been no placebo-controlled studies of ECT for depression since 1985, and all 11 studies prior to that date were very small, severely flawed and conducted on adults,\u201d he wrote, adding, \u201cThere have been no placebo-controlled studies on children or adolescents.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires ECT machines to have signs next to them stating, \u201cThe long-term safety and effectiveness of ECT treatment has not been demonstrated,\u201d Read observed<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights advocates a total ban of electroshock.  More than 135,000 people have signed CCHR\u2019s online petition<\/a> to ban ECT.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Court concluded that company\u2019s failure to fully disclose risks of electroshock to a physician meant that the patient also did not know the risks before undergoing the procedure, which resulted in brain damage. Citizens Commission on Human Rights warns device has never been proven safe. Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Court concluded that company\u2019s failure to fully disclose risks of electroshock to a physician meant that the patient also did not know the risks before undergoing the procedure, which resulted in brain damage. Citizens Commission on Human Rights warns dev","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2],"tags":[144,93,108,62],"class_list":["post-3297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-big-muddy-river-newsletter","tag-brain","tag-ect","tag-fda","tag-informed-consent"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6NMpC-Rb","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}