New Study Challenges Core Assumption Behind Electroconvulsive Therapy, Intensifying Calls for Ban

A forthcoming University of Houston study challenges the foundational safety assumption of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), prompting renewed calls from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) for an outright ban. For decades, psychiatrists have maintained that the 0.9 amps of electric current used in ECT is largely diverted by the scalp, sparing the brain from damage. This 'shunting theory' has been a cornerstone of ECT's safety claims. However, the new research, which analyzed a high-resolution 3D digital model of the head, indicates the opposite: 82.5% of the current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid and brain, with only 1.5% through the scalp. The findings, presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, suggest the CSF acts as a primary conduit, distributing current throughout the brain.

The study's implications are profound, as they contradict the notion that ECT is a safe, targeted treatment. Experts involved in the research note that electrical energy converts to heat within the brain, and higher currents produce more heat, which can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or cell death. Additionally, electricity can induce electroporation, creating pores in cell membranes that, when overwhelmed, lead to cell death. These mechanisms pose significant risks for brain damage, a concern echoed by Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, who compares the effects to closed-brain injury.

CCHR, an international mental health watchdog, has long campaigned against ECT, and this study bolsters its position. The organization points to the FDA's 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices, which they argue should be overturned under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, granting the FDA authority to ban devices posing unreasonable risk. With an estimated 100,000 Americans undergoing ECT annually, including minors, the stakes are high. CCHR has documented cases of ECT being administered to children as young as five.

Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, emphasizes that 'electroshock devices meet the FDA threshold' for a ban, citing decades of research documenting brain damage, memory loss, and cognitive deficits. She calls for regulators to require evidence of long-term safety and effectiveness, which has never been provided. The organization has been instrumental in securing bans on ECT for minors in California and Texas, and cites international actions, such as Western Australia's ban for under-14s and Ireland's recent prohibition for those under 18.

Survivor testimonies underscore the human cost. Eastgate herself received ECT as a teenager after a thyroid condition was misdiagnosed as depression, leading to severe memory loss. Paris Jackson recently revealed her experience with nine 'painful' ECT sessions, resulting in amnesia. Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018, reports long-term damage and memory loss. These accounts align with the World Health Organization's stance that ECT should be banned for children and considered abuse or torture without consent.

The study's findings and the growing body of evidence against ECT have intensified calls for regulatory action. As Eastgate concludes, 'All electroshock methods for all ages should be prohibited.' The future of ECT, once a standard psychiatric intervention, now hangs in the balance as science and advocacy converge to challenge its safety.