Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness

A tough read but very informative, covering a subject that's beyond controversial.Is it past time for ECT to be taken off the naughty step? I think reading this, that it is/

TOO TECHNICAL

A valuable historical perspective. The history of a wide range of past and present treatments is effectively covered. The book maintains a reasonable balance with a valyable perspective on the evolution of these therapies. Professionally valuable

In this book, the Edward Shorter and David Healy claim that, "it is not our goal to establish whether ECT causes memory problems beyond the relatively short-term difficulties that everyone agrees can arise for some people immediately after treatment." (p. 214) The statement is typical of the shallow and disingenuous character of the book. To claim that it's not your goal to establish whether ECT causes memory problems, i.e., to imply that you are taking a "neutral" stance, and then proceed to argue only one side of the debate - this is the stuff of clever editorials, not legitimate historical analysis. Psychiatry has always pursued a Don't Look, Don't Tell policy when it comes to shock treatment. For example, the American Psychiatric Association's 1990 task force report on ECT cited one 1986 study, by Freeman and Kendell, in claiming, "A small minority of patients, however, report persistent deficits." Compare this with what Freeman and Kendall actually wrote: "We were surprised by the large number who complained of memory impairment. Many of them did so spontaneously without being prompted, and a striking 30% felt that their memory had been permanently affected." Shorter and Healy ignore this pattern and instead adopt it. They misrepresent the shock literature, leave out important studies, and completely avoid important issues, including the almost universal relapse of patients following shock, psychiatry's refusal to conduct proper studies of shock's effects, and the fact that, while patients in community settings are commonly shocked at electrical doses grossly in excess of the American Psychiatric Association recommended guidelines, researchers never employ such levels. This is a credulous and poorly researched paean to shock treatment. The research literature is mostly ignored and the voices of patients are mostly silent and, if heard, quickly dismissed. Those who are searching for the truth about shock treatment will not find it here.

As a clinical professor of psychiatry at two medical schools, I highly recommend this book to my students and residents.

This book is a great disappointment. So much research was ignored, research that would contradict the authors' point of view.That's a shame in a book which has been promoted as a major contribution to the body of work on ECT. It has completely ignored (once again) the viewpoints and experiences of shock patients. To have excluded so much literature that would counter the authors' conclusions seems to prove that patients really don't matter; paternalism does.I am just stunned, as are many of Dr. Healy's former supporters in the psychiatric rights community, that he and Shorter would even publish such a book. It is "scientific review" at its very worst.

The previous reviews are deeply committed to warring against any account which does not privilege the demonizing, one-flew-over-the-cuckoo's-nest, characterization of ECT. Take the time to visit ect.org yourself, and you'll read numerous accounts of people who have experienced the treatment who do not share the gloomy, conspiratorial opinions of the site's founders.The polarizing argument plaguing this issue does no one any good. Shorter and Healey's book make clear that the treatment should not be used on people who are already disposed to worries about its effects. The authors show convincingly that the treatment has always depended on the therapeutic value of seizures.As far as Richard Warner's claim that the book is "a credulous and poorly researched paean to shock treatment," this will be plainly contradicted by anyone who takes the time to read it. The authors have provided an excellent account of the treatment's origins and different permutations over the years, any effort to read the book will be repaid.I do think though that the authors could have given more discussion to the profoundly conflicting opinions over the treatment, and I don't think they give enough voice to those who hold sincere complaints about their experiences.Nevertheless, Shock Therapy overs a superb account of the history and development of this still highly controversial psychiatric treatment.

This book by Shorter and Healy is a fascinating account of medical and social aspects related to the introduction of ECT in medicine. It is an essential reading for all training psychiatrists and ideally medical students as it illustrates the influence of social forces in medical research. The brief review of novel neurostimulation strategies at the end is a weak part of the book and seems heavily biased by the author's perception that this will never be equivalent or superior to ECT (instead of simply encouraging more research on the mechanism and benefit/harm of all neurostimulation strategies including ECT).

un document passionnant sur la sismothérapie cette méthode de soins controversée des pathologies mentales lourdes à mettre entre toutes les mains

Interesting reading so far, not finished yet...