A chara, – I am strongly opposed to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), whether voluntary or involuntary, as I believe the scientific basis for its effectiveness is weak, and the amount of evidence for its failure and, beyond this, its damage to people, is very strong.
I agree with Ingrid Masterson (Letters, January 12th): we should be wary of any form of treatment that damages, particularly one whose side-effects include loss of memory and, thus, loss of identity.
The continued presence of ECT is a symptom of a wider malady in our mental health system. It indicates that there is still a belief that if a person is shaken up, and forgets the pain experienced in their lives, they can be just like anyone else.
The choice of ECT also indicates a lack of imagination, and a failure, in many instances, to recognise that a person remains depressed and may become more severely so when the underlying issues (often including forms of abuse) have not been addressed.
We should question how distress comes to be seen as illness, and how, in turn, a new logic is used – a medical logic of diagnosis, prescription, additional intervention and review.
If we are to bring about the kinds of changes needed, we must tackle the medical model of human distress itself, and question its validity and value for all involved.
The issue of ECT is important, but all that we have recently read about it reflects the system as a whole, including the assumption that the professional is in a better position than the patient to know his or her needs. We should also recognise, from recent scandals implicating other kinds of institutions, that systems that regulate themselves require some external scrutiny to ensure the welfare of vulnerable people.
So long as we view distress as illness, we are going to turn to medical personnel, who are generally not trained specifically to understand human distress, and who are in a position to provide only medical solutions. Our mental health system is still strongly skewed towards the medical treatment of distress. All recent trends suggest this will intensify.
It may take a full-scale public outcry and a more sustained revelation of what is wrong with these methods to bring about what people in distress need: an environment open to the person’s situation, and patient, sufficiently qualified staff who will listen and help the person to make sense of and come through their difficulties. – Is mise,