Mental Health Watchdog Demands Ban on Electroshock Therapy in Florida

A growing movement led by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is challenging the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in Florida, raising significant concerns about patient safety and the medical procedure's long-term neurological impacts. The organization argues that ECT, which can deliver up to 460 volts of electricity through a patient's brain, poses substantial risks with minimal scientific validation.

Currently, approximately 100,000 Americans receive ECT annually, a treatment psychiatrists claim can 'reset' brain function. However, experts like Diane Stein, president of CCHR's Florida chapter, strongly contest this assertion. She emphasizes that the procedure lacks comprehensive scientific evidence demonstrating its safety or effectiveness, particularly for vulnerable populations like young children.

Critics highlight multiple concerning aspects of ECT, including potential side effects such as memory loss, confusion, and increased suicide risk. Ron Bassman, executive director of MindFreedom International and a former ECT patient, notes the unpredictable nature of memory loss, suggesting that patients are often not fully informed about potential permanent cognitive damage.

Legal and medical professionals have also voiced significant reservations. Attorney Jim Gottstein characterizes electroshock as causing 'permanent memory loss and closed head injury,' arguing that any apparent mood improvements are temporary and potentially result from head trauma-induced euphoria.

The core of CCHR's argument centers on the lack of comprehensive FDA-mandated clinical studies proving ECT's safety. Despite modern adaptations like anesthesia and muscle relaxants, the fundamental procedure remains fundamentally unchanged, delivering electrical currents through the brain in a manner that can resemble grand mal seizures.

Of particular alarm is the reported use of ECT on children under 5 in Florida, a practice that many medical ethicists and patient advocates consider unconscionable. The potential long-term neurological and psychological consequences for such young patients remain largely unknown and unstudied.

As mental health treatment continues to evolve, this ongoing debate underscores the critical need for rigorous, transparent research and a patient-centered approach to understanding and treating mental health conditions. The CCHR's campaign represents a significant challenge to current psychiatric practices, demanding greater accountability and protection for vulnerable patients.