Classics in ECT: Consent, Competency and ECT: Journal of Medical Ethics, 1983

"Classics in ECT" brings you this commentary from 1983:

Consent, competency and ECT: some critical suggestions.

Sherlock R.J Med Ethics. 1983 Sep;9(3):141-3. doi: 10.1136/jme.9.3.141.PMID: 6620317

The pdf is here.





This is one of four related pieces in this 1983 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. I blog about it so that you know it exists; those particularly interested in the ethics of ECT, ECT informed consent, and involuntary ECT may already be aware of it, but still might appreciate a reminder.
While I am no ethicist, the view expressed by Sherlock here seems very reasonable to me.
If one understands severe depressive illness, it is not hard to see how a patient may lack autonomy and be less than fully competent; better to err on the side of treatment and risk being called "paternalistic" than lose a life.
Perhaps the other pieces in this series will be subjects for the blog, as well...
I recommend a full read of this commentary, ~10 minutes. (Please see also blog post of September 25, 2021)

Comments

  1. The below comment is from Dr. Max Fink:

    It was refreshing to read the 1980s arguments on the ethics of consent to ECT. The argument was fueled by prejudice against electricity, seizures. At the time, and ever since, the toxicity of neuroleptics has not supported an “informed consent” for medications even though their toxicity is great.

    Comment: A modern review of the many ethical issues is spelled out by Jan-Otto Ottosson and Max Fink in their 2004 book Ethics of Electroconvulsive Therapy (Brunner-Routledge).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ECT vs Ketamine: NEJM Article Sets Up False Equivalency

RUL ECT vs Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy (LAP-ST)

ECT For Children at a University Hospital: New Study in JECT