Posted by Squiggles on December 2, 2005, at 11:54:31
In reply to Implants, ECT, posted by med_empowered on December 2, 2005, at 11:34:28
> Hi! the implants bother me b/c of power and consent issues.
Can't they be removed at will?
Psychiatry has a history of screwing over the mentally ill in the name of "treatment," and things are looking kind of scary right now (Mental Health Screening Project, easier commitment statutes, etc.).
Being in the States, I think you are referring
to the Bush initiative to check people for
mental health? I am not pro-Bush but I don't
see anything wrong with public health checks
on a *voluntary* basis.
I kind of feel like we could be entering a secong age of Mental Hygiene. (shudder)Yeah, I think I know what you mean. I was just
reading the BBC news on Chinese "Work makes you
Virtuous" programs in their prisons.
>
> ECT doesn't strike me as treatment so much as mild brain damage/head injury that sometimes proves helpful. If you'll notice, depression, bipolar, and schizophrenia were also often treated by lobotomy with "success," according to some docs.Strange thing but lobotomy does not scare me
as much as ECT. I may have an erronous assumption
that with brain surgery they more or less know
where the emotive malfunction orginates. Brain
tumours are successfully removed most of the time.Just like lobtomy, ECT functions to impair or disable certain bran functions, which could I suppose have a "therapeutic" effect, at least in the eyes of the shrink observing the patient (I imagine many ECT survivors would have a different outlook on the subject).
There is such a thing as an abnormal brain --
due to any number of conditions, e.g. car accidents, epilepsy, hypoxia at birth, lesions,
etc. The trick is recognizing the source of
the abnormality, and correcting it.
The canadian ect position paper you posted was interesting...it seemed like they were trying to speak the language of patient-empowerment, while keeping everything vague enough so they could still push ect as deemed appropriate.I got the same impression. But I have not
looked at the Canadian Psychiatric Association
policy -- i may do that later today.Tx.
>
> I can't imagine how I'd handle a doc talking to me about ECT. I've read that some shrinks avoid discussing it, since it can "break the therapeutic alliance". This is true, with me at least. I'm kind of concerned that shrinks can offer brain damage as treatment, and call it "highly effective" and "aggressive treatment" of psychiatric disorders. Its disconcerting, to say the least.It's such a hot topic that I doubt a doctor
would bring it up - though the patient might.
It's not the kind of treatment that is
considered in the office but in crisis situations,
and that is why I was looking for the consent
thing - the alternatives. BTW, I was wondering
if anaesthesia has not been tried in these
crisis situations -- if anyone comes out of that
better. At least it would give drs. time to
figure out a better drug and the history of
the patient.Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:584162
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051126/msgs/584549.html