{"id":5173,"date":"2025-11-17T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/?p=5173"},"modified":"2025-11-15T14:55:51","modified_gmt":"2025-11-15T20:55:51","slug":"new-research-raises-serious-questions-about-electroshock-as-treatment-for-depression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/2025\/11\/17\/new-research-raises-serious-questions-about-electroshock-as-treatment-for-depression\/","title":{"rendered":"New Research Raises Serious Questions about Electroshock as Treatment for Depression"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Survey responses showing little or no benefit for most electroshock recipients, along with long-term memory loss for many, led researchers to call for a suspension of the procedure until large-scale, high-quality research can determine whether benefits outweigh the risks.<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

by\u00a0\u00a0CCHR National Affairs Office<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two new research studies have dealt a devastating blow to the psychiatric procedure of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, or \u201celectroshock\u201d), with the largest-ever international survey of ECT recipients and their families reporting that most received little or no benefit from the treatment and, in many cases, reporting it worsened their lives.  A large majority of the responding ECT recipients reported memory losses, with most of them saying the problem lasted three years or more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ECT is a controversial psychiatric procedure that may be performed on depressed patients.  It involves shooting up to 460 volts of electricity through brain tissue to produce a grand mal seizure, the most serious type of seizure \u2013 the kind usually caused by epilepsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After 85 years of performing electroshock, psychiatrists still cannot explain how this procedure is supposed to work to treat depression, how much voltage to use, and how often and how many sessions of ECT to administer.  It is trial and error with human lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While psychiatrists administering ECT assert it is effective, especially for patients with severe depression, there is not adequate research to support that claim, according to a 2019  study<\/a>  led by researcher John Read, Ph.D., professor of clinical psychology at the University of East London, and Irving Kirsch, Ph.D., Associate Director at the Program in Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School.  They found there were only 11 placebo-controlled studies of ECT used to treat depression, and those studies were small, flawed, and at least 40 years old.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To address the inadequacy of this low-quality, outdated research while awaiting any new trials that meet today\u2019s research standards, Dr. Read and colleagues evaluated data collected from 1,144 individuals \u2013 858 ECT recipients and 286 family and friends \u2013 from 44 countries, who responded to an online survey about their experience with the procedure.  A series of research papers are planned, based on the data collected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first  study<\/a>  in the series, published recently in the  International Journal of Mental Health Nursing<\/em>, assessed whether ECT works.  Of the 964 survey respondents who reported on their most recent course of ECT treatment, 17% had received one to five ECT sessions, 35% between six and 10 sessions, 31% between 11 and 20 sessions, and 17% more than 20 sessions.  For nearly one-third (31%) of respondents, this was their first course of treatment, for another 31% their second to fifth course of treatment, and the remainder had six or more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The survey used five measures of the effectiveness of ECT: whether it was helpful for the specific condition for which ECT was given, was generally helpful, reduced suicidality, improved mood, or improved quality of life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The striking results of the survey should demand the attention of physicians and mental health providers who are recommending ECT and referring patients to psychiatrists who perform it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority (55%-71%) of the respondents said electroshock had no benefit or a negative effect on each of the five measures of effectiveness.  It is especially noteworthy that nearly half (49%) reported that ECT made their quality of life \u201cmuch worse\u201d (22%) or \u201cvery much worse\u201d (27%).  Less than half of respondents reported that ECT provided some benefit on the survey\u2019s five measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOur findings, from the largest survey ever conducted, indicate that claims that ECT is effective are, at best, unproven and, at worst, misleading,\u201d Read  said<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second study by the same researchers, using data from the same survey, assessed memory problems resulting from ECT.  The  study<\/a>  was published recently in  Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerning memory loss, Read writes that \u201cit is generally agreed that most patients experience some degree of memory problems\u201d from ECT.  He adds that \u201cthere is, however, no consensus on the severity or duration of these deficits,\u201d though \u201cit is usually suggested that they are mild and last only days or weeks.\u201d    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to that belief, a large majority of ECT recipients responding to the survey reported suffering from long-term memory problems after electroshock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the four measures of memory loss used in the survey, 61% to 84% of ECT recipients reported experiencing this adverse effect.  Nearly three out of four (71%) ECT recipients reported they are less able to remember new information (so-called anterograde amnesia).  Four out of five (80%) reported they lost memories of events that occurred before receiving electroshock (retrograde amnesia).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a large majority of the ECT recipients with memory loss (65% of those with anterograde amnesia and 81% with retrograde amnesia), their memory problems had lasted more than three years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhile some memory loss returns after days or weeks, memory loss 3 years later is probably permanent,\u201d Read wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a further finding, the measures of memory deficit were correlated with the number of ECT sessions, indicating a causal relationship.  \u201cThe more ECT treatments, the more damage,\u201d Read  wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A third  study<\/a>  of the survey data found that most (59%) survey recipients were not given adequate information about the risks of ECT.  Only 17% recalled being told that ECT can cause long-term or permanent memory problems; 12% that ECT can cause heart problems; and 28% that there are risks from repeated use of general anesthesia for ECT procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of their findings from the survey, Read and colleagues called for a halt to electroshock until high-quality research can show whether benefits outweigh the risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn conjunction with the absence of evidence that ECT is more effective than placebo, and the known long-term adverse effects on memory, these survey findings lead us to recommend a suspension of ECT in clinical settings pending independent large-scale placebo-controlled studies to determine whether ECT has any effectiveness relative to placebo, against which the many serious adverse effects can be weighed,\u201d Read  wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nobody knows how many Americans get electroshocked each year.  A widely used, but outdated estimate of 100,000 appears to come from a 1995 study. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychiatrists performing electroshock can greatly increase their income.  It has been estimated that a psychiatrist spending just a few hours a week to do 20 ECT procedures can bring in an additional $300,000 per year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) advocates a total ban on ECT and continues to raise public awareness about the harm it can cause.  CCHR\u2019s documentary,  Therapy or Torture: The Truth About Electroshock<\/em>, which can be  viewed online<\/a>, warns consumers about the serious risks of ECT. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To date, more than 139,000 people have signed the CCHR  online petition<\/a>  to ban ECT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The content on this site is for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for personal medical advice given by a licensed physician.<\/em>  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Survey responses showing little or no benefit for most electroshock recipients, along with long-term memory loss for many, led researchers to call for a suspension of the procedure until large-scale, high-quality research can determine whether benefits outweigh the risks. 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":"Survey responses showing little or no benefit for most electroshock recipients, along with long-term memory loss for many, led researchers to call for a suspension of the procedure until large-scale, high-quality research can determine whether benefits outweigh the risks.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2],"tags":[93],"class_list":["post-5173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-big-muddy-river-newsletter","tag-ect"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6NMpC-1lr","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5173","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=5173"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5173\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cchrstl.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}