NEWS: Psychiatric Hospital Ordered to Cease Shocking Patients

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yeah marg, it might be better if you put whatever political stuff you've been reading on the back shelf for awhile.

j/k

Humm you wish I do that,

By the way isn't these type of therapy considered a mean of torture?

I though they shock people to torture them also.

One flew east,
And one flew west,
And one flew over
The cuckoos nest

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
So, say what you like, believe what you want, call Scientology bogus, whatever...just don't give me that line about psychiatry working.

I can understand having issues with some psychiatrists and their methods and even some methods used in psychiatry. But psychiatry does work, not in every instance, and not in every way. Hubbard wasn't a psychologist by training or anything. That doesn't disqualify his method. Anyone who starts something can't be trained in it obviously. But his theories on some of these things, in particular I am thinking of engrams, is, at least from what I understand, bogus. The auditing method might help some people work thru stuff, heck auditing seems in many ways just like psychoanalysis, but whatever its doing, its not 'clearing' engrams and thetans.

Scientology has blown my depression

I'm glad to hear that. I expect that Scientology must have some methods that are workable, and perscribing 15 different medications for mild depression seems absurd.

I suppose a real skeptic might suggest some sort of placebo effect...but so what?

Why think its a placebo? If the books afirmed something for you or you were able to work thru it with the books, then its not a placebo. A placebo is really only a pharmacological term, in psychology, everything is a placebo.

The psychiatrist was forced to admit that no one understands how ECT works. So how can it possibly be legitimate

Because they don't need to undestand the exact mechanism by which it works, they merely need to show under controlled conditions that it does work repeatedly. It would be better to know the mechanism of course. What do you mean 'forced' to admit? Did he claim anyone did know before hand?

benevolent tyrant
It is a therapy whose side effects most frequently include short term memory loss

not meaning a short term loss of ones memory, but rather a loss of the ability to form short term memory.

marg
By the way isn't these type of therapy considered a mean of torture?

Certainly not. As othershave pointed out, its done while the patient is sedated. The link provided in a post above gives a description.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Likewise, there are legitimate uses for ECT.

You should check the actual text of the court decision. The psychiatrist was forced to admit that no one understands how ECT works.

So how can it possibly be legitimate??

there are plenty of things in science that we don't understand how they work....that doesn't make them any lesss legitimate.

An aspect of ECT that hasn't been mentioned is that the purpose of the shock is to initiate what is, for all intents and purposes, a grand mal siezure. Before ECT, these siezures were being caused using pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceuticals actually were far more dangerous and had more side effects than ECT. Now as the question about why a siezure should be beneficial, well, that is unknown. There is a lot of speculation but the process isn't totally clear. Nevertheless, it is noted that epileptics who also have depression have a remission after a siezure. This appears to be the basis for this belief and, unscientific as it may sound, anecdotal evidence has often been used to the point of becoming established practice. Keep in mind that this how most of medicines that have been plant based have come about. Anecdotal evidence is, in a sense, how everything that we do in medicine today came about.

ECT is not lobotomy. It has a remarkably safe record of use and it has been efficacious in the treatment of catatonia or deeply profound depression.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
there are plenty of things in science that we don't understand how they work....that doesn't make them any lesss legitimate.

OK, I'll buy that...up to a point (see below).

ECT is not lobotomy. It has a remarkably safe record of use and it has been efficacious in the treatment of catatonia or deeply profound depression.

I question the "remarkably safe record of use." Do you have any evidence for that? I searched pretty extensively, but found only anti-ECT sites.

The bottom line, I guess, is that if you have a person who is that far "gone", perhaps any treatment is better than none. But I know from personal experience that ECT is offered to people for MUCH milder conditions. And it clearly shouldn't be.

Malpractice, you fools!

The treatment is there, and can be used with fair accuracy in its effects. It's usually only given to those with extreme mental problems (major clinical depression, catatonic schizophrenia, etc). dealing with mental issues is still in its infancy- in the 50s and 60s, they did a lot worse than this much more regularly. ECT, much like the drugs you complain about, are surprisingly effective if used properly.

Unfortunately, there's two problems: Doctors and patients, both of which are idiots.

Doctors have a very hard hit-or-miss job, based on diagnoses from YOU, the patient. What I'm seeing here is grand incompetence being used to justify invalidating a perfectly acceptable practice that's being abused. As a first year student with one psych class, I can tell you that ECT is a last-ditch effort. Now, it appears the APA's entrance standards have plummeted because you got these quacks running around.

Problem two- patients. You people are effings morons sometimes. You whine and bitch that your medicines don't work, that they make you feel awful, and all that. Well, maybe it's YOUR failure to describe symptoms. Maybe its YOUR failure to apply yourself to therapy. As I said above, mental health sciences are hit or miss, because the doctors can't exactly go poking aroudn inside your skull for answers. If you expect your first drug to work, then you're expecting too much. There are four broad families of anti-depressant drugs for example. You have depression, okay. Guess what? It can be caused by any number of things, from diet to dopamine levels to seratonin reception. Don't expect miracles until at least your fifth drug. Again, working from the basis of depression, if you don't respond to TCA's, you might respond to SSRI's.

Sorry, I had to rant. The layman knows squat about psychology and neuroscience. The fields are getting moving, but they are inhibited by technology and age (neuroscience is like forty years old).

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Unfortunately, there's two problems: Doctors and patients, both of which are idiots.

Gee, thanks.

Problem two- patients. You people are effings morons sometimes.

Excellent insight, thanks for that.

You whine and bitch that your medicines don't work, that they make you feel awful, and all that. Well, maybe it's YOUR failure to describe symptoms. Maybe its YOUR failure to apply yourself to therapy.

I suppose this may be true for some, perhaps even for many, but not for me. I was a very well-informed patient, took all the meds exactly as described, etc.

As I said above, mental health sciences are hit or miss, because the doctors can't exactly go poking aroudn inside your skull for answers.

You (unintentionally, I'm sure) hit the nail on the head: they can't poke around inside your skull for answers because the answers aren't there to be found. The brain is just a thing - a very complex, highly developed thing, for sure, but still just a mass of stuff. This is what people are doing when they seek spiritual answers, regardless of the avenue they choose: they want to know (and hopefull eventually discover) that they are not their bodies. Furthermore the brain and the rest of the body is subservient to the actual person, so unless there's some actual physical damage we all have it in our power to beat depression (for example) without drugs or psychiatrists or any other quacks.

Granted, it took me a long time - too long - to figure this out. I'm glad I did before they talked me into having electodes stuck into my brain.

If you expect your first drug to work, then you're expecting too much. There are four broad families of anti-depressant drugs for example.

I tried about 15, from all 4 families. All dangerous, all useless.

Sorry, I had to rant.

You didn't HAVE to rant. Nor did you have to be so condescending. But hey this is a (fairly) free board, right?

The layman knows squat about psychology and neuroscience. The fields are getting moving, but they are inhibited by technology and age (neuroscience is like forty years old).

I predict it will be no further along, really, in another 40 years, at least in realtion to actually helping people. Treating symptoms is always a waste of time.

:bash:

Originally posted by DeusEx
Unfortunately, there's two problems: Doctors and patients, both of which are idiots.
DE

Really DE? And how did you reach this abrupt conclusion. Medico's and patients are not idiots.
That's why we have hospitals.

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye

Originally posted by DeusEx
Unfortunately, there's two problems: Doctors and patients, both of which are idiots.

Gee, thanks.

Been in front of a doctor too. Did my list of generic symptoms help him? Probably not.

You whine and bitch that your medicines don't work, that they make you feel awful, and all that. Well, maybe it's YOUR failure to describe symptoms. Maybe its YOUR failure to apply yourself to therapy.

I suppose this may be true for some, perhaps even for many, but not for me. I was a very well-informed patient, took all the meds exactly as described, etc.

Therein lies the majesty of the plural you. I'm not singling Mr. radiant eye out, I'm making general sweepign statements based on my observations.

As I said above, mental health sciences are hit or miss, because the doctors can't exactly go poking aroudn inside your skull for answers.

You (unintentionally, I'm sure) hit the nail on the head: they can't poke around inside your skull for answers because the answers aren't there to be found. The brain is just a thing - a very complex, highly developed thing, for sure, but still just a mass of stuff. This is what people are doing when they seek spiritual answers, regardless of the avenue they choose: they want to know (and hopefull eventually discover) that they are not their bodies. Furthermore the brain and the rest of the body is subservient to the actual person, so unless there's some actual physical damage we all have it in our power to beat depression (for example) without drugs or psychiatrists or any other quacks.

Granted, it took me a long time - too long - to figure this out. I'm glad I did before they talked me into having electodes stuck into my brain.

Ohhhhkay. Brain subserviant to the person, eh? Seperation of meat and mind? I'm not here to discuss philosophy, but this is probably the main issue between us. My opinion is that human beings are basically large, organic machines. Extremely complex ones. hardware and software are permenantly co-joined- you can't do something to one without affecting the other. there is no subserviance between the two.

If you expect your first drug to work, then you're expecting too much. There are four broad families of anti-depressant drugs for example.

I tried about 15, from all 4 families. All dangerous, all useless.

Clearly, it's dangerous! Why wouldn't it be? those pills you take, know what they do? Mess with your brain chemistry. This isn't something to be taken lightly. They can't give you perfection, they can only improve the situation to a point. There's always sacrifice involved.

The layman knows squat about psychology and neuroscience. The fields are getting moving, but they are inhibited by technology and age (neuroscience is like forty years old).

I predict it will be no further along, really, in another 40 years, at least in realtion to actually helping people. Treating symptoms is always a waste of time.

What else can we do, at this point? So far, neuroscience is pretty far ahead of the game as far as medicines go. The science of treating people's wounds is thousands of years old, and it's only lately that people have gotten it to work. Hey, remember what happened in the 1800's if you broke your leg? They sawed it off! Neurosci/chem is harder than it appears, so give these guys a break. They're trying to help you, but there's only so much they can do.

DE

Originally posted by sanctum

Originally posted by DeusEx
Unfortunately, there's two problems: Doctors and patients, both of which are idiots.
DE

Really DE? And how did you reach this abrupt conclusion. Medico's and patients are not idiots.
That's why we have hospitals.

Let me ask you this, then... how many malpractice suits were there last year in the United States alone? As for patients... well, the guy who attempted to steal a live lobster by shoving it down his pants says enough. There are a lot of stupid people out there.

DE

Yes, I think we've about reached the end of the line as far as what we can agree on.

Points of agreement, as I see it:

1. ECT, if used at all, should be an absolute last resort.

2. It never should have been offered to me!

3. Medicines are dangerous, and should be used with caution.

4. Medicines that mess with your brain chemistry are particularly dangerous, and should be used with extreme caution.

5. There is no "magic bullet" to cure depression or any other mental affliction.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Azeari of the Radiant Eye]

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
Yes, I think we've about reached the end of the line as far as what we can agree on.

Points of agreement, as I see it:

1. ECT, if used at all, should be an absolute last resort.

2. It never should have been offered to me!

3. Medicines are dangerous, and should be used with caution.

4. Medicines that mess with your brain chemistry are particularly dangerous, and should be used with extreme caution.

5. There is no "magic bullet" to cure depression or any other mental affliction.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Azeari of the Radiant Eye]

Well thank you Azeari for making the points of agreement clear.

But we need to also realize that ECT is not torture. The patient is sedated so there is no pain. For some reason, they never seem to sedate people who are being tortured. Next, every other therapy has usually already been tried. ECT is, for the most part, a therapy of last resort. Next. Not knowing exactly HOW a therapy works does not make it illegitimate if it does indeed work. There is a lot of evidence that acupuncture works but no western doctors could possibly explain it in a Western sense. If something works then it works. I would not want ECT if I did not need it. I would have to be catatonic, non functioning, to be administered ECT. The main side effect these days is short term memory loss and, to be honest, I suffer from this on an almost daily basis(and I'm not talking predomal alzheimers here).

Todays' ECT is NOT like the Electroshock therapy of the past. Electro Convulsive therapy provides a precise dosage of electricity to cause a convulsion.....a grand mal siezure. Anecdotal evidence from epileptics with depression showed that the depression often lifted or subsided after a grand mal siezure. For many years, the siezures were brought about using drugs, primarily insulin, to provoke the siezure. Electro shock therapy replaced the use of drugs to provoke siezures because it was safer and more reliable. Now, Electro Convulsive Therapy is even safer and more reliable with greatly reduced risks.

I would think, with all of the references to the film One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, that people are mistaking ECT for Lobotomy. At the end of the movie, we see Jack Nicholson's character wearing a bandage around his head. You wouldn't wear a bandage after ECT. There are no scars, no burns, no obvious physical evidence of the therapy at all. Look up lobotomy and you see that there would be a need for a bandage afterwards. Lobotomy is a surgery performed on the frontal lobe. Incidentally, lobotomies were finally discontinued in the 60's. Oh, by the way, lobotomies must have been LEGITIMATE therapy because they knew EXACTLY how it worked.

Incidentally, lobotomies were finally discontinued in the 60's. Oh, by the way, lobotomies must have been LEGITIMATE therapy because they knew EXACTLY how it worked.

Touche!

I am new here and I hope no one objects to me jumping in to this debate.

benevolent tyrant, your following statement is false.

"Electro Convulsive therapy provides a precise dosage of electricity to cause a convulsion.....a grand mal seizure."

The dosage of electricity needed to cause a convulsion in each time a patient VARIES each time a patient is shocked. It is not uncommon for a doctor to increase dosage of electricity as more ECT treatments are given to a patient. With each ECT treatment, most patient’s brain’s becomes more resistant to convulsing and more electrical force is need to cause a seizer. The ECT treatment process to cause a convulsion is mostly a trial and error process. A patient could be shock a few times durring a "treatment" before finding the amount of current that sustains an acceptably long enough seizer to treat his depression.

Before anesthesia, less electricity was needed to cause a patient to convulse. Today’s ECT machine provides a higher electrical dosage than those in the past to compensate for anesthesia’s anti-convulsive affect on a patient.

Electrical safety experts know brain damage or death can occur in a brief electrical pulse of only 20 to 50mA . Most modern ECT machines deliver at least a whopping 800MA for up to 4 seconds. Some doctors will used the highest setting on their ECT machines to get their patients to seize up to the desired 30 to 60 seconds.

I would agree with you that today’s' ECT is NOT like the Electroshock therapy of the past. Higher doses of electricity are routinely being used on patients now than in the past. I think no legitimate science could claim that using a higher dose of electricity on patients known to cause a brain injury is safe for patients. Today’s ECT is more likely to harm a patient than it did in the past.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Frank2000]

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Frank2000]

Thanks for the information, Frank, it's good to see some actual numbers regarding this issue. As I said, after considerable searching, I only came up with anti-ECT sites, and most of those seemed to be chest-beating rather than factual.

I still can't believe that bozo wanted to give it to me for (maybe) having mild depression...