There are a few things I really love discussing with students...mostly because of their fresh perspective on old topics in psychology and partly because they have a great way of cutting through the BS that gets built up around older ideas.
ECT - electro-convulsive therapy, is one of those topics. I find it particularly reassuring that each time I explain that yes, we are talking about administering electricity directly to the brain, I'm met with looks of horror and shock (no pun intended...okay, maybe a little pun). When I get that reaction, I know that there is still some good in the world *phew*. I think it is perfectly normal to react this way when you first hear about ECT.
If you're interested in the topic, you should duck over to the PsychCentral blog. JOHN M GROHOL reports on a FDA investigation into how ECT is classified in the United States. If you read through this entry you'll get a very interesting (and potentially upsetting) insight into how business, profits and health services can collide.
I wonder what minimum standards of evidence you would want if it was your brain receiving ECT? How would you like to see a professional body (like the APA, who made this statement) involved? Although psychologists in Australia are not responsible for administering ECT, as a treatment that is still used and accepted in the treatment of mental health, this is an issue worth discussing.
No comments:
Post a Comment