Why is electroshock therapy still a mainstay of psychiatry?
aeon.co
aeon.co
She was in hospital in a near-catatonic state, which had been preceded by a several years of serious mental illness, eventually including psychosis.
The idea of her undergoing this kind of treatment was awful. However, she went from near-catatonia, IV fluids, and literal spoonfeeding to...being responsive, alert, and basically having the will to live again, over the course of intensive treatment (2-3 sessions/week for 2 months). Once she was able to eat and be aware of her surroundings, she was tapered off of ECT and began other interventions like talk therapy, medication, etc. All of this was 3 years ago, and she has not needed ECT again since. She is now in really good mental health.
I did a lot of research on ECT before I could come to terms with it. The turning point for me was calling a friend from high school whom I knew I could trust who had become a psychiatrist. She has administered ECT to her patients. I asked her what she would do if it were her own mother, and she said she'd do it.
It's not something to take lightly (the memory loss is real), but in this case it sure as hell beat the alternative. My mom credits it with saving her life as well.
PS If anyone reading this is struggling or has a loved one who is struggling, I don't have the right words but I'm thinking of you. None of these decisions are easy.
While waiting for the procedure I did get to know a lot of the patients and their families. There were a few people who seemed to be getting markedly better. There was also a woman with a brain injury and she claimed the ECT kept her mentally afloat for a few months, until she needed it again. The thing that helped my ex much more ended up being ketamine infusions, but even that has some risks.
This is just my experience. I don't know that there's a whole lot to learn from it, but I do know that for some patients it worked, though it's definitely not the permanent fix I've heard people claim it is.
"Electroconvulsive therapy gets a bad rap from old movies where we see people who “misbehave” in the mental institution getting what look like very painful electric shocks.
Modern electroconvulsive therapy is done with the patient sedated. You are pleasantly asleep, your limbs aren’t flailing about or anything, and it can be done on an outpatient basis with you going home as soon as you’re done.
There are a lot of worries about side effects. Some people experience some memory loss, especially of the couple of weeks before the treatment. Most of the time these memories come back. Sometimes they don’t. But how much do you want to remember the week when you were so depressed you needed ECT, anyway? Longer-term side effects are less well-known. Some people think a lot of ECT isn’t good for your brain, but if the effect exists it’s small enough that people are still debating whether or not they’ve really picked it up.
But the thing is, ECT really, really works. People get to the point where everything else has failed, and they’ve been on seven hundred different medications without feeling any better, and they’re ready to give up, and then they get ECT and start whistling happy songs and dancing the polka. I won’t say it works 100% of the time, because no medical treatment works 100% of the time. But in psychiatry, where expectations are always low, it’s the closest thing we’ve got to a miracle cure."
I have no idea what I am talking about, though.
According to the article, studies on the subject of efficacy of ECT are few and far between, obsolete and methodologically flawed and there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that ECT "works" (in the sense of improving the patient's condition).
I don't know if this could be one reason for differing views regarding efficacy, or if it's just more anecdata and noise.
edit: better choice of words
I met a woman once (between 10-15 years ago) who had had ECT. She was...not negative about it? I think she said it had helped her. But her affect was very flat and dull and made me involuntarily think of brain damage and lobotomies and such. To be fair, I didn't know her beforehand, so I was unable to compare.
I wish it wasn't too much to ask for people to focus research efforts on tools to determine what is actually happening in the brain at the moment of experiencing depressive or psychotic thoughts. Rather than developing random treatments with nothing behind them. When's the last time you got frustrated with debugging a program and started making random changes? Did it work?
I have kind of never stopped being horrified at reading about how drug companies test their medications for mental illness by giving people surveys on how they feel. They are using super sophisticated technology to make the treatments, and fancy statistics on the results, but they can't objectively measure what is happening. It's GIGO.
We need more and better tools like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics.
I don't know how it compares to ECT, though, and whether the cases potentially helped by each modality are the same or different. After all, depression is not a single coherent phenomenon. Individual cases can vary a lot, and it's quite possible that not all of depression is even the same disease with the same physical manifestations.
I don't know exactly why TMS would work either. I'm under the impression that it somehow increases activity in parts of the brain at which it's targeted (or inhibits it in others, if done with different parameters).
Even just being able to determine mental state at a high resolution (temporally) would be incredible because then you can study treatments much better. Existing treatments tend to be like "ok take this for a month, now do you feel better" and people rationalize it by saying "well, maybe it's growing brain cells". Cause and effect just dissolve into murkiness when you can't do experiments with rapid turnaround.
There are plenty of proponents of ECT, and overall the balance of evidence for most guidelines suggests it is useful in some situations. From my experience working in psychiatry in the UK at least, psychiatrists do just want to help treat patients, and use it as it seems to work in select situations. Its just another treatment option, why demonise it?
ECT is a palliative treatment that does not address any of the causes of the patients' actual problems. While some patients seem to benefit, some are grievously harmed. The precautionary principle, and ethical guidelines, should eliminate this form of modern bloodletting from the therapeutic arsenal.
My personal test for any proposed medical treatment is as follows: can any resoning given in support of the treatment be also used to support homeopathy? If so, then the proposed treatment is not necessary (or, equivalently, it can be replaced by homeopathic treatment).
Applying the test to your reasoning in support of ECT, I have the following:
"There are plenty of proponents of [homeopathy], and overall the balance of evidence for most guidelines suggests it is useful in some situations. From my experience working in [homeopathy] in the UK at least, [homeopaths] do just want to help treat patients, and use it as it seems to work in select situations. Its just another treatment option, why demonise it?"
That wouldn't convince me of the merits of homeopathic treatments, so it does not convince me of the merits of ECT.
To be honest I was a little unsure what you meant by "the balance of evidence for most guidelines".
About homeopathy, I bring it up for two reasons. One is that homeopathic treatments are still available on the NHS and also in Greece where I am currently pretty much every pharmacy sells homeopathic remedies (which I found very upsetting but I digress); and the other is that homeopaths conduct painstaking studies and then report their results as evidence that homeopathy works, but this evidence is typically rejected because of poor methodology by mainstream scientists. So "evidence" can mean anything depending on the context.
My main aim is to point out that this is not the view of all experts, and given it is still recommended after review by panels of experts on a national level (the UK NICE guidelines). This is what I refer to as balance of evidence in most guidelines. There is no incentive to continue using it in if it doesn’t work. The evidence base is not clear, but that’s true for a lot of interventions in medicine. I don’t have any strong views for or against ECT personally, but I object to the one sided nature of the article. It feels like a crusade against ECT.
I agree with your points about homeopathy, but the difference is here that the prevailing opinion of the experts is that it is helpful in some situations. That is why I would say it is difference.
https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%...
A discussion of this document is here: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/power-threa...
> One is that homeopathic treatments are still available on the NHS
They're effectively banned. The NHS even went to court to maintain the ban. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2018/06/nhs-england-welcomes-home...
NICE doesn't have guidance for homeopathy, but they do have an evidence search. None if it shows any benefit: https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=homeopathy
The guidance for ECT has a section about evidence. You're right that some of the evidence is low quality, however you don't get similar evidence of effect with homeopathy trials - https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/TA59
> The Assessment Report reviews data from 90 RCTs in individuals with depressive illness, of different grades of clinical severity, who were referred for ECT. Overall, these RCTs provide evidence that real ECT (that is, where an electric current was applied) is more effective than sham ECT (where no electric current was applied) in the short term. The data provide evidence that the stimulus parameters have an important influence on efficacy; at the end of a course of treatment, bilateral ECT was reported to be more effective than unilateral ECT. Raising the electrical stimulus above the individual's seizure threshold was found to increase the efficacy of unilateral ECT at the expense of increased cognitive impairment. In trials comparing ECT with pharmacotherapy, ECT had greater benefit than the use of certain antidepressants but the trials were of variable quality and inadequate doses and durations of drug therapy were frequently used. The combination of ECT with pharmacotherapy was not shown to be superior to ECT alone, although the duration of the RCTs was insufficient to show whether pharmacotherapy was beneficial. Compared with placebo, continuation pharmacotherapy with tricyclic antidepressants and/or lithium reduced the rate of relapses in people who had responded to ECT. Preliminary studies indicate that ECT is more effective than repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
However, you literally said "and physical anguish". Patients being sedated (and given muscle relaxants in order to avoid the patients hurting themselves while under anaesthesia) would address that. GP pointed that out.
Nobody will be able to say that there have never been any cases where the patient was awake, even when administered general anaesthetics, but if the anaesthesia for some reason fails, that would not be the doctors knowingly inflicting anguish.
If ECT were (still) done without anaesthesia nowadays, you'd be right, but my limited understanding is that it isn't. If your understanding is different, by all means share it, but the sarcastic "no cases ever, right?" rhetoric isn't really an argument.
The story of patients trying to run away definitely sounds like an involuntary application of the treatment, which certainly seems inhumane in all but perhaps the most extreme of cases. But the story was from the 1970's. Are the present day practices of administering ECT still the same? If not, present day use should not be judged based on that.
I agree that side effects such as memory loss sound scary and severe, and should be taken seriously. Maybe they aren't given enough consideration. I can't really judge that since I don't know the circumstances that lead to ECT being considered.
All in all, it's obviously an emotional topic, but I don't think the way you responded to GP was really fair.