Balancing our discussions on ECT

I submitted the below to the Age a couple of days after an article provided an unbalanced account of people’s experiences of “brain stimulation” technologies, such as electroconvulsive treatment. It wasn’t published so I provide you briefly below.

Thank you to Sarah Berry for writing their piece on mental health issues and brain stimulation, including electroconvulsive treatment (ECT). As someone who has studied psychology and worked in the public mental health system, I think it's important to provide another perspective.

While the article is well-intentioned, it provides an incomplete picture. It is true that the administration of ECT has improved. However, it is also true that researchers are still not aware of the potential therapeutic mechanisms and, therefore, potentially negative consequences of applying electrical currents to a brain. Moreover, the claim that ECT is 'low-risk' and has minimal side-effects is more ideology than contemporary accepted evidence.

The article doesn't acknowledge that ECT often occurs involuntarily (129 Victorians Jul-Sept). Mental health patients (termed “consumers”) routinely have their human rights breached by mental health services administering involuntary ECT. When I interviewed consumers during Victoria's Royal Commission, the overwhelming experience from the 34 accounts was one of "power and control" from the system.

We need to be present to the empirical and human rights challenges that underly ECT and other mental health interventions. We need to be courageous remake a new system with new mistakes, not revise history and repeat old ones.