News from: headline
January 8, 2010
ECT without consent
ECT without consent
Madam, – On reading Dr Dermot Walsh’s article, (Opinion, December 28th), and in conjunction with it, Ian Woods’s response to Siobhan Barry’s, the following questions burn for an answer: first, against what standards do these two doctors judge their “ethical obligations”? Previous correspondence from the Irish Medical Council would seem to indicate that medical ethics are based on a type of “consensus” – ie unethical behaviour, on the part of a particular doctor, is judged to be behaviour which is deemed to be unethical or unacceptable to a group of his/her peers. Note: only a doctor’s peers may adjudicate on his/her behaviour, ordinary laypeople are not deemed sufficiently qualified to do so.
Furthermore, if Mr Woods’s “professional ethics”, as a psychotherapist, require him to “respect clients’ right to self-determination and autonomy” and Dr Barry’s “professional ethics” require her to “impose ECT against the person’s wishes in relevant circumstances” it would appear we have here two diametrically opposed interpretations of the very meaning of “human rights,” “freedom of choice” and “informed consent”. To further add to the alarm – and well-founded alarm – of any person contemplating getting help for themselves or a loved one, who may be suffering with a “mental illness”, Dr Walsh gives a brief history of ECT, admitting that its discovery was based on the mistaken belief that “epilepsy” and “psychosis” could not exist at the same time in the same person. Based on this error, it was believed inducing epileptic fits, by whatever means possible, was capable of curing psychosis! Then came the accidental discovery: ECT was the best cure for “involutional melancholia” aka “psychotic depression”.
Dr Walsh goes on to wonder about the reduced incidence of “psychotic depression” in more modern times, attributing the reduction to – “either . . . depression. . . being recognised and treated earlier, or its characteristics . . . changed because of cultural or social changes”.
Is this a first? An admission by a psychiatrist that psychiatric diagnoses are essentially arbitrary in nature, capable of being altered by “cultural or social changes”? Thus, we have no defined standard of “normal” behaviour against which the “abnormal behaviour”, as typified by mental illness, can be measured and compared?
Just as psychiatric diagnoses are essentially arbitrary, it would appear psychiatric ethics are also arbitrary, decided only by psychiatrists among themselves, without necessarily referring to any human rights treaty or charter of fundamental rights.
In this age of accountability, is it good enough that doctors should only be answerable to their peers and not to their clients/patients/victims for their decisions, ethical or otherwise? And in the treatment of mental illnesses, with such arbitrary diagnostic criteria, why should the methods available to Western-trained psychiatrists, with their obvious limitations, be regarded as superior to methods practised by healers of other medical/ cultural traditions?
I am a survivor of “intensive” ECT, to which I was subjected without my consent or knowledge, eventually discharged from “hospital” as a virtual vegetable, no longer “psychotically depressed” – but, then – whoever saw a depressed vegetable?
Careful analysis (by myself) of my psychiatric records would appear to indicate that at least 90 per cent of my symptoms were caused by inappropriate psychiatric interventions. My conclusions are supported by the fact that I have not been hospitalised in over 27 years, despite extremely dire prognoses by all psychiatrists involved in my care, at the time. I have now returned to college, full-time, am a second-year legal studies student, very happily married, with three grown-up children. I am very acutely aware that I am one of the lucky ones, one that got away, with relatively mild – though permanent – memory and learning problems.
My good fortune I attribute to my extraordinary husband. His opinion of psychiatrists is unprintable! – Yours, etc,
Comments
Post a comment
Archive
- February 2012 (2 articles)
- January 2012 (7 articles)
- December 2011 (4 articles)
- November 2011 (8 articles)
- October 2011 (7 articles)
- September 2011 (2 articles)
- August 2011 (2 articles)
- July 2011 (3 articles)
- June 2011 (4 articles)
- May 2011 (4 articles)
- April 2011 (2 articles)
- March 2011 (1 articles)
- February 2011 (1 articles)
- January 2011 (2 articles)
- December 2010 (1 articles)
- November 2010 (1 articles)
- October 2010 (4 articles)
- September 2010 (3 articles)
- August 2010 (2 articles)
- July 2010 (1 articles)
- June 2010 (7 articles)
- May 2010 (2 articles)
- April 2010 (3 articles)
- March 2010 (2 articles)
- February 2010 (9 articles)
- January 2010 (6 articles)
- December 2009 (4 articles)
- November 2009 (1 articles)
- October 2009 (7 articles)
- September 2009 (6 articles)
- August 2009 (5 articles)
- July 2009 (10 articles)
- June 2009 (6 articles)
- May 2009 (13 articles)
- April 2009 (13 articles)
- March 2009 (8 articles)
- February 2009 (13 articles)
- January 2009 (11 articles)
- December 2008 (5 articles)
- November 2008 (8 articles)
- October 2008 (6 articles)
- September 2008 (5 articles)
- August 2008 (5 articles)
- July 2008 (5 articles)
- June 2008 (2 articles)
- May 2008 (5 articles)
- April 2008 (3 articles)
- March 2008 (6 articles)
- February 2008 (4 articles)
- January 2008 (4 articles)
- December 2007 (4 articles)
- November 2007 (7 articles)
- October 2007 (4 articles)
- September 2007 (2 articles)
- August 2007 (3 articles)
- July 2007 (6 articles)
- June 2007 (6 articles)
- May 2007 (8 articles)
- April 2007 (3 articles)

