Electroconvulsive therapy

I am someone who has fought the stigma (“you let them do that to you? Why?”) of having ECT, and also have done a great deal of research. I believe it saved my life, but I also did suffer from the severe end of the possible memory effects. What is crucial is that the up-to-date best practices are used; Columbia University did a major series of research reports on this. Unfortunately, many hospitals in the US do not follow the newest research to achieve best outcomes.
In addition, accurate information supports the value of ECT, but it does not make false promises. ECT, like any medical procedure, has risks as well as benefits, and does not work for everyone. However, just as there are critics who misinform, there are those who give inaccurate information that only addresses benefits. A simple example: ECT helps 60 to 70% of people with treatment resistant depression. That’s terrific — for them, prior help was 0%. But it is not true when people say it is effective 90 to 95% of the time. (That would make it a miracle among virtually all of medicine!)
I am saying all of this because I saw there is a recommended video posted here with Dr. Max Fink, and it praises his expertise. He is an “old school” ECT expert, and probably saved ECT from being eliminated from use in the 60s and 70s. But he has failed to accept the really of the new scienfic research at places like Columbia, denying, for example, that there is ever serious memory loss caused by ECT. He is a very poor information source for anyone wanting accurate, balanced information.
Last fall, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published my letter noting the inaccuracy of information printed by Dr. Fink. JAMA does not do that lightly!

At the end of the previous century (‘80-’90) he also did some missionary work on ECT in Europe. In most countries in Europe in those days patients suffered longer than necessary due to insufficient availability of ECT. In The Netherlands, since his visits, ECT became available to many but probably still not enough patients. Restarting ECT had the advantage of implementing new scientific evidence in our daily practice of ECT.
As you probably have read on this blog we supply our patients with accurate up to date and balanced information. It is one of the purposes of this blog.
Regards Dr Shock

Hi
I have read and heard all of the people CRYING aobut the post ECT memory loss
What they NEVER say is that ECT probably saved their lives. To me it is like a cancer survivor saying got TERRIBLE cancer treatment is because the person lost an arm or a leg to the desease but are living with out the limb.

I am someone who has fought the stigma (“you let them do that to you? Why?”) of having ECT, and also have done a great deal of research. I believe it saved my life, but I also did suffer from the severe end of the possible memory effects. What is crucial is that the up-to-date best practices are used; Columbia University did a major series of research reports on this. Unfortunately, many hospitals in the US do not follow the newest research to achieve best outcomes.
In addition, accurate information supports the value of ECT, but it does not make false promises. ECT, like any medical procedure, has risks as well as benefits, and does not work for everyone. However, just as there are critics who misinform, there are those who give inaccurate information that only addresses benefits. A simple example: ECT helps 60 to 70% of people with treatment resistant depression. That’s terrific — for them, prior help was 0%. But it is not true when people say it is effective 90 to 95% of the time. (That would make it a miracle among virtually all of medicine!)
I am saying all of this because I saw there is a recommended video posted here with Dr. Max Fink, and it praises his expertise. He is an “old school” ECT expert, and probably saved ECT from being eliminated from use in the 60s and 70s. But he has failed to accept the really of the new scienfic research at places like Columbia, denying, for example, that there is ever serious memory loss caused by ECT. He is a very poor information source for anyone wanting accurate, balanced information.
Last fall, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published my letter noting the inaccuracy of information printed by Dr. Fink. JAMA does not do that lightly!

At the end of the previous century (‘80-’90) he also did some missionary work on ECT in Europe. In most countries in Europe in those days patients suffered longer than necessary due to insufficient availability of ECT. In The Netherlands, since his visits, ECT became available to many but probably still not enough patients. Restarting ECT had the advantage of implementing new scientific evidence in our daily practice of ECT.
As you probably have read on this blog we supply our patients with accurate up to date and balanced information. It is one of the purposes of this blog.
Regards Dr Shock

Hi
I have read and heard all of the people CRYING aobut the post ECT memory loss
What they NEVER say is that ECT probably saved their lives. To me it is like a cancer survivor saying got TERRIBLE cancer treatment is because the person lost an arm or a leg to the desease but are living with out the limb.

I am someone who has fought the stigma (“you let them do that to you? Why?”) of having ECT, and also have done a great deal of research. I believe it saved my life, but I also did suffer from the severe end of the possible memory effects. What is crucial is that the up-to-date best practices are used; Columbia University did a major series of research reports on this. Unfortunately, many hospitals in the US do not follow the newest research to achieve best outcomes.
In addition, accurate information supports the value of ECT, but it does not make false promises. ECT, like any medical procedure, has risks as well as benefits, and does not work for everyone. However, just as there are critics who misinform, there are those who give inaccurate information that only addresses benefits. A simple example: ECT helps 60 to 70% of people with treatment resistant depression. That’s terrific — for them, prior help was 0%. But it is not true when people say it is effective 90 to 95% of the time. (That would make it a miracle among virtually all of medicine!)
I am saying all of this because I saw there is a recommended video posted here with Dr. Max Fink, and it praises his expertise. He is an “old school” ECT expert, and probably saved ECT from being eliminated from use in the 60s and 70s. But he has failed to accept the really of the new scienfic research at places like Columbia, denying, for example, that there is ever serious memory loss caused by ECT. He is a very poor information source for anyone wanting accurate, balanced information.
Last fall, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published my letter noting the inaccuracy of information printed by Dr. Fink. JAMA does not do that lightly!

At the end of the previous century (‘80-’90) he also did some missionary work on ECT in Europe. In most countries in Europe in those days patients suffered longer than necessary due to insufficient availability of ECT. In The Netherlands, since his visits, ECT became available to many but probably still not enough patients. Restarting ECT had the advantage of implementing new scientific evidence in our daily practice of ECT.
As you probably have read on this blog we supply our patients with accurate up to date and balanced information. It is one of the purposes of this blog.
Regards Dr Shock

Hi
I have read and heard all of the people CRYING aobut the post ECT memory loss
What they NEVER say is that ECT probably saved their lives. To me it is like a cancer survivor saying got TERRIBLE cancer treatment is because the person lost an arm or a leg to the desease but are living with out the limb.

I am someone who has fought the stigma (“you let them do that to you? Why?”) of having ECT, and also have done a great deal of research. I believe it saved my life, but I also did suffer from the severe end of the possible memory effects. What is crucial is that the up-to-date best practices are used; Columbia University did a major series of research reports on this. Unfortunately, many hospitals in the US do not follow the newest research to achieve best outcomes.
In addition, accurate information supports the value of ECT, but it does not make false promises. ECT, like any medical procedure, has risks as well as benefits, and does not work for everyone. However, just as there are critics who misinform, there are those who give inaccurate information that only addresses benefits. A simple example: ECT helps 60 to 70% of people with treatment resistant depression. That’s terrific — for them, prior help was 0%. But it is not true when people say it is effective 90 to 95% of the time. (That would make it a miracle among virtually all of medicine!)
I am saying all of this because I saw there is a recommended video posted here with Dr. Max Fink, and it praises his expertise. He is an “old school” ECT expert, and probably saved ECT from being eliminated from use in the 60s and 70s. But he has failed to accept the really of the new scienfic research at places like Columbia, denying, for example, that there is ever serious memory loss caused by ECT. He is a very poor information source for anyone wanting accurate, balanced information.
Last fall, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published my letter noting the inaccuracy of information printed by Dr. Fink. JAMA does not do that lightly!

At the end of the previous century (‘80-’90) he also did some missionary work on ECT in Europe. In most countries in Europe in those days patients suffered longer than necessary due to insufficient availability of ECT. In The Netherlands, since his visits, ECT became available to many but probably still not enough patients. Restarting ECT had the advantage of implementing new scientific evidence in our daily practice of ECT.
As you probably have read on this blog we supply our patients with accurate up to date and balanced information. It is one of the purposes of this blog.
Regards Dr Shock

Hi
I have read and heard all of the people CRYING aobut the post ECT memory loss
What they NEVER say is that ECT probably saved their lives. To me it is like a cancer survivor saying got TERRIBLE cancer treatment is because the person lost an arm or a leg to the desease but are living with out the limb.

I am someone who has fought the stigma (“you let them do that to you? Why?”) of having ECT, and also have done a great deal of research. I believe it saved my life, but I also did suffer from the severe end of the possible memory effects. What is crucial is that the up-to-date best practices are used; Columbia University did a major series of research reports on this. Unfortunately, many hospitals in the US do not follow the newest research to achieve best outcomes.
In addition, accurate information supports the value of ECT, but it does not make false promises. ECT, like any medical procedure, has risks as well as benefits, and does not work for everyone. However, just as there are critics who misinform, there are those who give inaccurate information that only addresses benefits. A simple example: ECT helps 60 to 70% of people with treatment resistant depression. That’s terrific — for them, prior help was 0%. But it is not true when people say it is effective 90 to 95% of the time. (That would make it a miracle among virtually all of medicine!)
I am saying all of this because I saw there is a recommended video posted here with Dr. Max Fink, and it praises his expertise. He is an “old school” ECT expert, and probably saved ECT from being eliminated from use in the 60s and 70s. But he has failed to accept the really of the new scienfic research at places like Columbia, denying, for example, that there is ever serious memory loss caused by ECT. He is a very poor information source for anyone wanting accurate, balanced information.
Last fall, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published my letter noting the inaccuracy of information printed by Dr. Fink. JAMA does not do that lightly!

At the end of the previous century (‘80-’90) he also did some missionary work on ECT in Europe. In most countries in Europe in those days patients suffered longer than necessary due to insufficient availability of ECT. In The Netherlands, since his visits, ECT became available to many but probably still not enough patients. Restarting ECT had the advantage of implementing new scientific evidence in our daily practice of ECT.
As you probably have read on this blog we supply our patients with accurate up to date and balanced information. It is one of the purposes of this blog.
Regards Dr Shock

Hi
I have read and heard all of the people CRYING aobut the post ECT memory loss
What they NEVER say is that ECT probably saved their lives. To me it is like a cancer survivor saying got TERRIBLE cancer treatment is because the person lost an arm or a leg to the desease but are living with out the limb.