Bioshock 360
February 10th, 2010

When psychotherapy fails, often times other medically oriented measures are needed to address the mental problems of those suffering with more severe disorders. These types of therapies are known as somatic therapy and include a number of different approaches including pharmacotherapy, psychosurgery, and electroconvulsive therapy. Almost all the time these therapeutic measures are administered in a psychiatric hospital as opposed to the offices of psychologists.
One of the most controversial methods of somatic therapy is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). In this form of treatment, a 150 volt electrical current is passed through the brain for a little less than one-second at a time. This is mostly used to treat patients suffering with major forms of depression for which psychotherapy alone proves ineffective in curing. The current triggers a convulsion and causes the patient to lose consciousness for a short period of time. Muscle-relaxers and sedatives are give to the patient to soften the physical effects of the electrical current. Typically, treatment is dealt in a series of six to eight sessions over a span of three to four weeks.
It's not the shock itself that does anything, but rather the seizure that follows that is alleged to provide relief. The shock induced seizures alter the biochemical and hormonal balance in the brain and body, bringing an end to severe depression and potentially suicidal behavior. This has led to much skepticism amongst mental health professionals though. Some contend that ECT doesn't really have any positive effects, but rather confuses the patients so they have trouble remembering why they were depressed to begin with.
Thus, over the years debates have ensued about the empirical evidence in support of ECT. Many professionals consider it distasteful, unprofessional, or even downright harmful to the patients. However, even amongst proponents, the limitations of ECT are agreed upon. First, it produces only temporary relief for patients suffering from acute episodes of depression. It's never proposed as an overall cure for major depressive episodes. Secondly, ECT alone cannot be said to relieve patients of their depression without a combination of other treatments, such as psychotherapy. It has also been confirmed that the shock induced seizures cause permanent memory loss in many patients. ECT should only be considered as a last resort after pharmacotherapy has failed. Thus, professionals have concluded that for immediate treatment for severe depression, ECT should be recommended for ending rapid or imminent self-destructive behavior.
However, there still remains some serious ethical questions that remain surrounding the use of ECT. The ones I would like to focus on here have more to do with the ethical issue of informed consent, rather than the efficacy or empirical evidence in support of electroconvulsive therapy.
Unlike traditional forms of medical informed consent, the issue at stake with ECT is that patients come with a mind-set altered by some severe form of mental disorder, namely depression. Often times this makes obtaining true informed consent a difficult task. Ensuring that the patient is aware that ECT treatment has its limitations, what to expect, and all the associated harms/benefits falls upon the responsibility of the doctor involved. Questions have been raised surrounding the capacity for which those suffering from extreme mood disorders or psychosis can possibly give their consent to undergo treatment.
Obtaining informed consent is a staple of the medical profession, and involves many sensitive issues. Often times, patients come to sessions with unrealistic or irrational expectations because they've tried everything else and they are looking for any means of relief. This may obscure the reality of what they're facing and how they are perceiving the potential harms/benefits of any possible ECT treatment. Much of the debate has focused on whether or not patients fully understand the actual expected relief offered by ECT.
Concerns regarding informed consent ultimately break down to questions of autonomy. Is the patient consenting to electroconvulsive therapy making an autonomous decision? Even more, what is really meant by autonomy? In order for someone to make an autonomous decision of their own accord, they must satisfy certain requirements that any rational person could be expected to make similar decisions if found in the same situation. However, are those suffering from severe depressive mood disorders truly autonomous? The answer to this question continues to be at the center of the debate regarding autonomous decision making and ECT.
More factors may be involved with gaining informed consent, which are not strictly limited to ECT. As in any patient/doctor relationship, the power is centralized in the hands of the doctor or medical professional. Since most patients seeking treatment know little regarding how the brain functions, how treatment is expected to relieve them, and the bio-neurological effects occurring during treatment – they enter the patient-doctor relationship in a submissive role. The disproportional amount of power in the hands of the doctor leaves many concerned that uninformed patients might easily be convinced to consent to something they fundamentally know nothing about. With the contested efficacy and ethical standing of ETC, this remains a heavily debated topic in ECT.
Another major concern surrounding ECT is the principle of doctors from refraining from committing any harm unto the patient. Considering how ECT works through shock-induced seizures which may have serious consequences on the patient, the question has been asked whether or not this is considered harmful and in violation of the ethical standards for which members of the medical profession are supposed to act upon? Furthermore, the situation is made even more complicated by the fact that shock-induced seizures are not necessarily life saving, nor is the evidence that they reduce the number of suicides above scrutiny. In fact, some researchers and medical professionals say that ECT may cause more suicide attempts than it prevents.
In conclusion ECT continues to remain a hotly debated issue in the mental health community as well as those specifically focused on medical ethics in general. Many have contested not only its efficacy, but the remote possibility that any truthful and valid consent could ever be obtained for a therapeutic measure that could possibly result in far worse consequences than that for which it is supposed to relieve. Further, many doctors and medical ethicists believe that succumbing to ECT is in fact a medical harm and a violation of the ethical principles for which doctors have been subscribing to for centuries. Finally, they contest that no treatment that isn't a life-saving measure can possibly be justified when it involves the potential for harm (seizures) like that of electroconvulsive therapy.



