What Is ECT?

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), also known as electroshock therapy, is a psychiatric procedure that sends electricity through the brain (up to 460 volts) producing a surge of electrical activity that results in a grand mal seizure. During the procedure, the body stiffens, arms and legs often jerk, the face may turn pale blue, and the individual loses consciousness. A typical course of ECT involves 8 to 20 shocks administered every other day, though some patients receive up to 40 sessions.^[1]^[2]^[3]

ECT originated in 1934 when psychiatrist Ladislas Meduna began inducing seizures in psychotic patients after observing that epilepsy patients appeared to improve after seizures. Neurologist Ugo Cerletti and his colleague Lucio Bini developed the first ECT device in 1938 after observing how electric shock was used in slaughterhouses to stun pigs before slaughter. Despite this troubled origin, ECT is today administered to approximately 100,000 Americans per year including children as young as five.^[4]^[1]

The Danger: Brain Damage and Memory Loss

One of the most consistent and documented concerns raised across CCHR’s reporting is the link between ECT and permanent brain damage and memory loss.^[5]

Key documented findings include:

A 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported a considerable “decrease in functional connectivity” between the prefrontal lobes of the brain and other parts of the brain following ECT. The most extensive long-term follow-up study concludes that “most ECT patients will never recover from the damage in the form of persistent severe mental deficits.”^[5]
Leading ECT researcher and advocate, psychologist Harold Sackeim, admitted in an editorial in The Journal of ECT that “virtually all patients experience some degree of persistent and, likely, permanent retrograde amnesia.” In a 2007 study published in Neuropsychopharmacology, Sackeim and colleagues acknowledged that ECT may cause permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities that affect ability to function.^[6]
In 2005, a Santa Barbara Superior Court judge ruled that a psychiatrist and a psychiatric facility had deceived patients by failing to inform them that ECT causes irreversible memory loss. The psychiatrist, who had performed shock treatment for over 20 years, admitted that neither he nor anyone else understands how shock treatment works.^[5]
In March 2016, a UK coroner determined that Elsie Tindle died after electroshock triggered an epileptic fit which caused irreparable brain damage.^[5]
ECT device manufacturer Thymatron’s own product literature acknowledges that use of the device could result in permanent brain damage and severe memory loss.^[5]

Eminent retired neurologist Fred Baughman, Jr., M.D. states: “Throughout the more than three decades of my neurological practice I have encountered patients treated with ECT who had permanent erasures of parts of their memory… psychiatrists may wish to call ECT and such end-results ‘therapeutic’ but they never achieve anything but to diminish adaptability in the broadest sense and cannot be called ‘therapeutic’ or medically justifiable.”^[7]

Attorney and founder of Psychrights, Jim Gottstein, similarly stated that “shock causes permanent memory loss and closed head injury” and that “electroshock doesn’t treat mood disorders. It may work for a day or two because of the euphoria from a head injury, but once effects wear off, doctors have to keep performing it, causing progressive brain damage and memory loss.”^[2]

No Clinical Proof of Safety or Effectiveness

A central point made across CCHR’s articles is that the FDA has never required clinical trials to prove the safety or efficacy of ECT devices; a standard required of virtually every other medical device or drug.^[2]^[5]

Despite over 80 years of use and billions of dollars spent on ECT research, psychiatrists themselves openly admit they still do not know how ECT “works.” They also concede that it is not a cure. Yet ECT generates approximately $5.4 billion per year in the United States alone.^[7]

In 2018, the FDA quietly reclassified the ECT device from Class III (high risk, requiring clinical trials) to Class II (lower risk, not requiring clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy) despite no clinical trials being conducted to establish that brain damage is not an adverse effect. CCHR charges that the FDA has allowed an “incestuous relationship” with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to guide this decision, resulting in the removal of “brain damage” as a listed adverse effect in ECT literature.^[7]

The FDA’s own Final Order on ECT, in a 13-page response to attorneys challenging its stance, devoted only two sentences to the issue of brain damage and deferred to a 2011 advisory panel that was comprised largely of psychiatrists with a vested interest in keeping ECT on the market.^[7]

ECT and Suicide: A Dangerous Myth Exposed

One of the most alarming findings repeated across CCHR’s articles concerns ECT’s use as a supposed suicide prevention tool. This claim is not only unsubstantiated it may be directly contradicted by evidence.

A study by Dr. Bradley Watts of Dartmouth College found that ECT is no better than other mental health treatments at decreasing suicide risk.^[1]
A study by Munk-Olsen reported that ECT was associated with an increased risk of suicide.^[1]
A Psychiatric Times article reviewing multiple studies stated that “patients in the ECT group were 16 times more likely to attempt suicide over 12 months than the non-ECT patients.” The same review concluded that “there is no evidence ECT prevents suicide.”^[2]

Diane Stein, President of CCHR, has stated: “ECT is pushed as a treatment for depressive resistant depression and suicide when there is no evidence that ECT prevents suicide but there is evidence that it increases suicide risk.”^[2]

ECT Used on Children: A Grave Human Rights Concern

Perhaps the most shocking finding to emerge from CCHR’s investigations is the confirmed use of ECT on children, including those under the age of five.

A public records request by CCHR revealed that in Florida, children in the under-5 age group are given electroshock. CCHR subsequently filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with all U.S. states; 27 states responded, and 19 admitted they allow the use of electroshock on children, including seven states using it on those aged “zero to five.”^[6]^[2]

This occurs despite the fact that:

Three U.S. states (California, Tennessee, and Texas) have enacted partial bans on ECT for minors aged 0 to 12 or 0 to 16.^[5]
The World Health Organization has stated: “There are no indications for the use of ECT on minors, and hence this should be prohibited through legislation.”^[6]
The United Nations has recently concluded that ECT “is not recommended for children, and this should be prohibited through legislation.”^[8]

CCHR notes that as far back as the 1950s, psychiatrist Lauretta Bender pioneered the use of ECT on children. In a 1954 follow-up study, 32 children who had been subjected to ECT at Bellevue Hospital were tracked; many showed serious deterioration.^[9]

In 2003, Dr. Loren Mosher and Professor David Cohen raised the fundamental ethical question in a paper for the AMA Journal of Ethics: if the first and foremost rule of the medical profession is to do no harm, then what are we doing promoting an ineffective procedure without the informed consent of patients?^[8]

ECT and the Elderly: A Targeted Vulnerability

Half of all ECT patients in the United States are over the age of 65. This is particularly troubling given that memory loss is among the greatest fears of the elderly, and yet ECT’s primary acknowledged side effect is precisely that.^[3]

A review by the standing committee of the New York State Assembly concluded in 2002 that the elderly “were more likely to receive ECT,” even though “permanent cognitive deficits, memory loss and premature death were among the increased risks from ECT faced by older people.”^[3]

In 2016, individual psychiatrists received more than $10 million in Medicare dollars to administer electroshock primarily to the elderly. A single ECT treatment costs between $300 and $800, and a standard course of 8 treatments costs between $2,400 and $6,400 making it a highly profitable procedure for providers despite its acknowledged risks.^[3]^[7]

One psychiatric nurse described the toll on elderly patients: “Some people seem to undergo drastic personality changes. They come in the hospital as organized, thoughtful people who have a good sense of what their problems are. Weeks later I see them wandering around the halls, disorganized and dependent… They leave the hospital in worse shape than they came in.”^[3]

ECT and Veterans: A Broken Promise

CCHR’s reporting has also shone a spotlight on the alarming use of ECT within the Veterans Affairs (VA) system, even as veteran suicide rates continued to climb.

A FOIA request by CCHR revealed that between 2012 and 2016, an average of 950 veterans received approximately 11,323 electroshocks per year. Veterans aged 55 to 64 accounted for 1,459 electroconvulsive therapy sessions, and another 975 veterans aged 65 to 74 were also administered the procedure.^[4]

Since 2008, the VA has spent more than $1.1 million on ECT devices and related parts despite no manufacturer ever providing clinical trials proving safety and efficacy.^[4]

This occurred while the suicide rate for veterans aged 18 to 34 jumped more than 10 percent between 2015 and 2016. CCHR argued that rather than investigating whether ECT and psychotropic drugs were contributing to veteran suicides, the VA and military agencies continued to use and purchase these devices.^[4]

Forced and Involuntary ECT: A Form of Torture

Multiple United Nations bodies have weighed in on the question of forced ECT, and the conclusion is stark: involuntary ECT may constitute torture under international law.

In 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan E. Méndez, reported that ECT, even when given with anesthetic and muscle relaxants, may cross a threshold of mistreatment that is “tantamount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” He called for “an absolute ban on all forced and non-consensual medical interventions against persons with disabilities, including the non-consensual administration of psychosurgery, electroshock and mind-altering drugs.”^[6]
A July 2018 UN Human Rights Council report on “Mental health and human rights” called on governments to recognize that forced psychiatric treatment, including ECT, constitutes “practices constituting torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”^[6]

The United States is a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture (CAT), which requires it to take measures to end torture within its jurisdictions. Yet 33 U.S. geographical jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, have state laws and administrative codes that do not even comment on the use of ECT.^[6]

An Australian case set significant precedent when the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that the forcible use of ECT violates patients’ human rights, a decision applauded by CCHR.^[10]

Real cases document the horror of forced ECT in America. In 2021, a psychiatric patient named Brian Henley attempted to escape from Shands psychiatric hospital in Florida. He was cornered by staff and forcibly shocked for weeks, resulting in memory loss, confusion, nerve pain, and depression that persisted long after he finally left. Ron Bassman, executive director of MindFreedom International, who was himself forced into shock therapy at age 25, lost his memory for about a year and a half and believes shock hindered his creativity.^[2]

A Lucrative Industry Protecting Itself at Patients’ Expense

CCHR’s reporting repeatedly documents how ECT has become a powerful, profit-driven industry that has successfully shielded itself from oversight and accountability.

ECT generates approximately $5.4 billion per year in the U.S.^[7]
Park Royal Hospital in Lee County, Florida (operated by Acadia Healthcare) at one point administered electroshock to patients every 15 minutes with assembly-line regularity. After a two-year shutdown of its ECT ward following a federal inspection and investigations into two patient deaths, the facility moved to reopen that ward.^[7]
Acadia Healthcare, the corporation operating Park Royal, agreed to pay $17 million to settle accusations of Medicare fraud; the largest fraud-related settlement in the history of Virginia at the time.^[7]

Florida saw a 60% increase between 2015 and 2016 in the number of Medicaid recipients who were electroshocked. Texas, the only state to systematically record deaths within 14 days of ECT administration, reported a death rate that represents an estimated 300 deaths nationally each year from ECT.^[5]

International and Institutional Support for a Ban

Beyond CCHR’s own advocacy, a growing body of international and expert opinion has called for ECT to be suspended or banned entirely.

A study published in the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry called for the use of ECT to be suspended immediately due to the risk of side effects including brain damage.^[5]
Forty experts, including researchers, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, signed an open letter published in Psychology Today by Professor John Read, Ph.D. of the University of East London, calling for an independent inquiry into ECT.^[4]
The World Health Organization’s 2021 report on coercive psychiatry addressed unlawful institutionalization, overmedication, and practices including non-consensual ECT, calling on member states to address these abuses.^[4]
The WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation explicitly states: “There are no indications for the use of ECT on minors, and hence this should be prohibited through legislation.”^[6]

CCHR’s online petition to ban ECT has gathered over 90,000 signatures.^[6]

The Failure of Informed Consent

CCHR’s articles make a compelling case that what passes for “informed consent” in ECT practice is fundamentally flawed and, in some cases, constitutes consumer fraud.

Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International, has said: “Telling patients and their families that ECT is ‘safe and effective’ with transient minimal side effects or asserting that battering the brain with electricity doesn’t damage it, should constitute consumer fraud.”^[7]

Patients who are involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility may have their right to consent waived, meaning they can be subjected to ECT without agreeing to it. Under international human rights standards, this constitutes torture. Even among patients who technically “consent,” Ron Bassman notes that “there is no such thing as true informed consent, because doctors don’t tell patients the irreparable damage shock does.”^[2]^[6]

CCHR’s Call to Action

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights Florida has been unwavering in its call for a complete ban on ECT devices — for all ages, in all settings. Diane Stein, President of CCHR in Florida, has stated plainly: “The use of the ECT device in this country should be banned altogether — that is the bottom line.”^[2]

CCHR’s advocacy efforts include:

Filing over 2,300 complaints on psychiatric abuse in Florida with relevant state and federal authorities.^[11]
Filing FOIA requests in all 50 states to expose the hidden scope of ECT usage, including on children.
Hosting exhibits such as “Electroshock: Therapy or Torture?” in the Florida Capitol Rotunda in Tallahassee.
Organizing and leading public protests, including marches outside the American Psychiatric Association’s annual convention demanding a ban on ECT.
Supporting Florida legislation to protect children from ECT and other coercive psychiatric interventions.
Maintaining petitions, both state and national, calling for a ban on ECT devices.

SOURCES: