In a 7\/2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has turned down Simone D., who had sued not to be put through electroshock again. (She’s had electroshock done to her over 200 times in her life).<\/p>\n
According to the majority opinion<\/a>,<\/p>\n At a hearing held on the petition, Dr. Ella Brodsky, a licensed psychiatrist and the person who administers the ECT at Creedmoor, testified that the appellant suffers from a “major depressive disorder, severe, with chronic features” and was incapable of making decisions regarding her own treatment. In fact, Dr. Brodsky asserted that during a meeting to discuss treatment, at which the appellant, her Spanish-speaking attorney, Dr. Brodsky, and the treatment team were present, the appellant refused to respond or even make eye contact.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gee, the patient refused to talk or make eye contact during a meeting with the doctor who conducts torture on her. What could possibly account for that? Hmmmn….<\/p>\n A few points:<\/p>\n 1) Electroshock, or ECT, Has No Proven Benefits.<\/strong><\/p>\n The majority’s opinion relies heavily on Dr. Brodsky’s belief that electroshock is an effective treatment for Simone D. But the evidence that electroshock ((Including “ECT” or “electroconvulsive treatment,” which seems to bear approximately the same relationship to “electroshock” that “intelligent design” bears to “creationism.”)) has any beneficial effects is practically nonexistent.<\/p>\n For instance, Bonnie Burstow, an academic and psychotherapist, writing in the journal Canadian Woman Studies<\/em>, reports: ((Burstow, Bonnie. “Understanding And Ending ECT: A Feminist Imperative.” In Canadian Woman Studies<\/em>, aka Les Cahiers De La Femme<\/em>, vol. 25 (1,2), p. 115-122. (.pdf link<\/a>.) ))<\/p>\n While minimizing the damage done, ECT ((“ECT” stands for “electroconvulsive treatment,” a form of electroshock.)) promoters defend the use of ECT on the basis of its alleged effectiveness in alleviating depression and preventing suicide. And yet electroshock has no such special efficacy. In a rigorous double blind study, Lambourne and Gill found that a month after shock and simulated shock, shocked patients had not improved more than nonshocked. They concluded that shock does not produce a superior therapeutic effect and that its alleged effectiveness is due to placebo. Correspondingly, all the research on electroshock and suicide\u2014for example, Black and Winokur\u2014tell the same story: ECT has no effect on the suicide rate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From a review of literature published in The International Journal of Risk And Safety In Medicine<\/em>: ((I’ve edited out endnotes and citation details from this passage. Citation: Breggin, Peter (1998). “Electroshock: scientific, ethical, and political issues.” In The International Journal of Risk And Safety In Medicine<\/em>, vol. 11, p 5-40. (.pdf Link.<\/a>) ))<\/p>\n Crow and Johnstone, in a review of controlled studies of ECT efficacy, found that both ECT and sham ECT ((“Sham ECT” refers to faking ECT treatment but not actually shocking the patient. It’s the equivalent of treating patients with a sugar pill rather than a drug.)) were associated with “substantial improvements” and that there was little or no difference between the two. […]<\/p>\n At the Consensus Conference on ECT, critics and advocates of ECT debated the issue of efficacy. The advocates were unable to come forth with a single controlled study showing that ECT had a positive effect beyond 4 weeks. Many studies showed no effect, and in the positive studies, the improvements were not dramatic…. The Consensus Conference panel stated in its report that ECT had no documented positive effect beyond 4 weeks. […]<\/p>\n ECT is frequently justified as treatment of last resort in cases at high risk for suicide. […] Despite the claims of advocates, research uniformly shows that ECT has no beneficial effect on the suicide rate. […]<\/p>\n Some patients do feel “helped” by ECT. Often they have been so damaged that they cannot judge their own condition. They suffer from iatrogenic denial and helplessness. But should a treatment be banned when some people believe they are helped by it? In fact, it is commonplace in medicine and psychiatry to withdraw from use treatments and devices that have caused serious harm to a small percentage of people, even though they may have helped a very large percentage. The risk of serious injury to a few outweighs helping many.<\/p>\n In the case of ECT, a large percentage of people are being harmed, and there is very little evidence that many are being helped.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And of course, Simone D. doesn’t perceive herself as being helped by ECT at all.<\/p>\n So the first thing to understand about this decision is that it’s based on a false premise. The court’s assumption that ECT “works” and is beneficial, which formed the basis for their decision, does not have any empirical support in controlled scientific studies.<\/p>\n What has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is that ECT causes permanent damage to the brain<\/a>. So Simone D. is being forced to have treatment that she finds painful and unhelpful, and which will permanently damage her brain.<\/p>\n What ECT brings to my mind this review of the book Madhouse <\/em><\/a> — about Henry Cotton, administrator of a New Jersey asylum, who for decades forcibly removed teeth and other body parts from unwilling patients \u201cfor their own good,\u201d and was much admired for this practice.<\/p>\n I don’t doubt that Dr. Brodsky believes she is doing good. But medicine, and in particular doctors at asylums, have a long history of doing grave harms to their patients in the name of helping them, based more on ideology than on evidence.<\/p>\n 2. Most Electroshock patients are elderly women.<\/strong><\/p>\n Multiple studies have shown that between two-thirds and three-quarters of patients given electroshock treatment — regardless of the diagnosis — are older women. From the activist website endofshock.com<\/a>:<\/p>\n Why is it that women are disproportionately represented as electroshock patients?<\/p>\n 1) This is a legacy of patriarchy, where women continue to be coerced, overtly or subtly into psychiatric treatment.<\/p>\n 2) This is also a legacy of sexism, where \u201c\u2019masculine\u201c stoicism is valued and feminine\u201d qualities such as emotional expression are classified as psychopathological. It is also related to sexism in that social and economic inequality is still a big factor in our society, and understandable stress reactions, sadness and confusion are interpreted as \u201csymptoms of mental illness.\u201d<\/p>\n 3) Women, compared to men, are expected to be passive, and they may be punished or silenced for speaking out and complaining. When a woman is being considered for electroshock, one should ask, “What is important that she not remember and tell about?” Or “What is it that the others do not want to hear or look at?” Often it is abuse, always it is difficult or disruptive conduct that makes others feel uncomfortable or threatened.<\/p>\n 4) Women are on average more open to getting help than men. In our psychiatric system, it is assumed that human problems and crises are due to biologically or genetically based \u201cmental illnesses.\u201d The primary treatment is psychotropic drugs, so women reaching for help get drugs, these drugs often do not help or actually worsen their situation; hence, the backup treatment of electroshock is brought into play.<\/p>\n 5) Elderly women often cannot handle psychotropic drugs because of aging and infirmity, so are considered prime candidates for electroshock.<\/p>\n 6) Women of perimenopausal may be experiencing depressive symptoms due to undiagnosed hormonal or endocrine changes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, the minority of patients who are young, male or both are equally important; electroshock therapy should be banned for all patients, period. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore that this form of torture is practiced disproportionately against older women.<\/p>\n I expected that ECT would also be primarily used against lower-class and non-white women. However, according to Bonnie Burstow’s essay, “the primary target is middle-class white women.” ((From Burstow, page 120: “Whenever a relatively new area is taken up, it is easy to assume that the identical structural dynamics that apply to other issues apply to this one. Indeed, I have heard feminists who know little about ECT claim that working class women and women of colour are in greater jeopardy of electroshock. As demonstrated in Breggin (1997) and numerous other sources, the reality is markedly different. The primary target is middleclass white women. While is it important to start theorizing why this is the case and theorize it with an antiracist and anti-capitalist awareness, it is essential that we educate with this reality in mind.”))<\/p>\n 3. Simone G. is a native Spanish speaker, but has not been offered substantial therapy in Spanish.<\/strong><\/p>\n ECT shouldn’t be used at all, in my opinion; but even ECT defenders agree that if ECT is used, it should be a last resort. But — as the dissenting opinion by Judge Crane<\/a> noted — treatment by a Spanish-speaking therapist was tried “for only a few weeks.” Simone G., through her lawyer, has requested that same-language therapy be resumed as an alternative to ECT, but this request has been refused.<\/strong><\/p>\n Alison Hymes (whose mental disability rights blog<\/a> is really great), writing in comments at the Mental Disability Law Blog<\/a>, sums it up:<\/p>\n So they\u2019ve caused her brain damage, documented in her record, tried psychotherapy with someone who speaks her language for only a few weeks, and they call this treatment? She doesn\u2019t speak English but has no Spanish speaking MH staff, you think that might impact her mental health????<\/p>\n This is state sanctioned torture and brain damage. I thought NY was doing better than this a few years back. We need a stronger advocacy system in NY, that\u2019s clear, and more rights for patients in treatment over objection hearings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 4. Who you can write.<\/strong><\/p>\n Reclusive Leftist has the contact information<\/a> for four New York politicians who should be emailed, faxed, called or emailed asking them to intervene on Simone G’s behalf.<\/p>\n (It’s via R.L. that I learned of Simone G’s case. She heard it in turn via Writhe Safely<\/a>, (Edited a bit to try and fix my phasing in the link to Writhe Safely. For the record, I don’t think she’s an anti-feminist at all. She seems like a cool person; I just disagree with how she wrote one post.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a 7\/2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has turned down Simone D., who had sued not to be put through electroshock again. (She’s had electroshock done to her over 200 times in her life). According to the … Continue reading which is annoyingly anti-feminist<\/strike> which I think is unfair to feminists (the post blames feminists for not knowing about an issue that has received zero media coverage; I think it would make more sense to blame the media) but I can totally understand why she’s pissed off, even though I think her anger is aimed a bit in the wrong direction. The Mental Feminist<\/a> also has a post up.)<\/p>\n