Electric shock treatments -----------------------------------------------------------

International mental health watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights calls for public action to oppose a proposal by the U.S. FDA to reclassify electroconvulsive (ECT) devices as being low risk, despite the documented health risks. The group has also launched a new public service announcement on the dangers of ECT as a part of this call to action.

You can make a public comment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) here: 1.usa.gov/1P0aMfh
Play Video
Play
Mute
Current Time 0:00
DefaultsDone
HOME
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP CALLS FOR ACTION TO STOP WIDESPREAD USE OF BRAIN-DAMAGING ELECTROSHOCK TREATMENT
March 11, 2016

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has launched a public service announcement (PSA) warning about the documented risks of electroshock treatment. The PSA calls for survivors of the treatment, their families, healthcare professionals and others to urgently oppose the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) plan to reclassify the electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) device as low risk. CCHR was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and eminent psychiatrist, Prof. Thomas Szasz. It has been responsible for dozens of laws in the U.S. and around the world either implementing informed consent or a prohibition of ECT for some age groups.

“[G]iven the volume of evidence demonstrating its substantive brain-damaging outcomes, we call for an immediate global ban on the use of electroshock on all children. — Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, Assoc. Professor, York University, et al., 2014 study on ECT”
CCHR charges that device makers should fulfill a mandate that the FDA gave them in 1979 to provide clinical evidence of safety and efficacy.[1] To date, this has not been done.

Despite this and while acknowledging “significant risks associated with ECT,” the FDA plans to reduce the risk classification given to the device in 1976 and has given a deadline of March 28, 2016 for people to comment on its proposal.[2] CCHR urges people to report any knowledge of ECT damage by logging onto the FDA site.

You can make a public comment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) here: http://1.usa.gov/1P0aMfh

ECT is administered to 100,000 U.S. citizens each year.[3] Yet, the FDA lists fourteen health risks associated with ECT, including:
“Death may result from various complications of ECT such as reactions to anesthesia, cardiovascular complications, pulmonary complications, or stroke.”

“Cardiovascular complications. The…convulsions may be accompanied by arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat) or ischemia/infarction (i.e., heart attack).
Hypertension (high blood pressure) as well as hypotension (low blood pressure) may be associated with ECT treatment.”

“Cognition and memory impairment. ECT treatment may result in memory impairment, specifically immediate post-treatment disorientation, anterograde memory impairment [loss of the ability to create new memories] and retrograde personal memory impairment [loss of memory-access to events that occurred, or information that was learned, before an injury].”[2]

According to an announcement of the pending rule change from the FDA, the agency is proposing changing the classification of ECT devices “for use in treating severe major depressive episode (MDE) associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BPD) in patients 18 years of age and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition.”[2]

CCHR says that because the FDA does not regulate medical practice, if it reclassifies the device, it could potentially open the door to widespread use of electroshock, including on children. It is already being studied for use on autistic children.[4]

Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International says: “Because the FDA does not regulate medical practice, classifying the ECT device as Class II for any ‘disorders’ opens the door to a massive potential for off label use and possible enforced treatment of involuntarily detained patients and children.”

A 2014 study by Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, et al. stated: “The ongoing and growing interest within psychiatry in prescribing electroshock or shock-like procedures for treating certain behaviors or conditions deemed psychoneurologic in children is of grave concern, given that the plethora of evidence that electroshock has at its very core an intent to damage and incapacitate the brain appears to be ignored.” The authors concluded that “given the volume of evidence demonstrating its substantive brain-damaging outcomes, we call for an immediate global ban on the use of electroshock on all children.”[4]

A February 16, 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment report defined procedures such as electroshock without the consent of the patient as a form of torture.[5]

Eastgate says, “Anyone concerned about patient protections and safeguarding lives should immediately oppose the FDA’s harmful proposal.”

References:
[1] Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 172, September 4, 1979, pages 51776-51777, reporting 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 882, [Docket No. 78N-1103], ia600307.us.archive.org/3/items/federalregister44tunit/federalregister44tunit.pdf (page 490 of PDF).

[2] Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy, “Neurological Devices; Reclassification of Electroconvulsive Therapy Devices Intended for Use in Treating Severe Major Depressive Episode in Patients 18 Years of Age and Older Who Are Treatment Resistant or Require a Rapid Response; Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for Electroconvulsive Therapy for Certain Specified Intended Uses,” December 18, 2015, 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 882, Federal Register Number 2015-32592, regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1210-0001

[3] “Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT).” Mental Health America, mentalhealthamerica.net/ect
[4] Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, et al., “The Utmost Discretion: How Presumed Prudence Leaves Children Susceptible to Electroshock,” CHILDREN and SOCIETY, Vol. 28, 205-217 (2014), chrysm-associates.co.uk/images/vanDaalen-Smith&Breggin2014_ECTchildren.pdf
[5] A/HRC/22/53, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez,” United Nations, General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Twenty-second Session, Agenda Item 3, 1 Feb. 2013, p. 21, para 85, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session....
NEWSLETTERS

Vancouver’s First Nations Find Hope With CCHR Crusade
Exposing Electroconvulsive Therapy For What It Is—Torture
Diane Stein Shares Her CCHR Actions
CCHR Inundated at Annual Nurses Event
more news »

CCHR
CHAPTERS WORLDWIDE

click here

Site Navigation
ABOUT US CCHR GLOBAL LOCATOR VIDEOS
TRUTH ABOUT PSYCHIATRY ALTERNATIVES TAKE ACTION
NEWSLETTER CCHR PUBLICATIONS ORDER

© 1995-2018 Citizens Commission on Human Rights International. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy
<iframe src="//www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MZHN9D" height="0" width="0" style="display:none;visibility:hidden"></iframe>

DOWNLOADS
Top of Form
Select…AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia-HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBruneiBulgariaBurkina FasoBurmaBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African Rep.ChadChileChinaColombiaComorosCongoCongo D.R.Costa RicaCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicCôte d'IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLaosLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesiaMinor Outlying IslandsMoldovaMongoliaMontenegroMoroccoMozambiqueNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNorth KoreaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalQatarRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSpainSri LankaSt Vincent & the GrenadinesSudanSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaVietnamWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe

Sign me up for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights Newsletter.

Home » Library » Psychotherapy » Risks and Side Effects of ECT
Risks and Side Effects of ECT
By Lawrence Park, AM, MD
~ 7 min read
Pages: 1 2All

Lawrence Park, AM, MD presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Neurological Devices Panel examining the reclassification of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) devices on January 27, 2011. These are his remarks describing a research literature review of the risks and primary side effects of ECT, as published in the public record of the meeting.

Key risks are defined as substantial risks of device use that could significantly influence the risk/benefit profile of the device. Mitigating factors may potentially serve as regulatory controls to adequately reduce the risk of device use such that a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness can be demonstrated for the device.
Like the determination of potentially significant adverse events discussed in the safety review, the identification of key risks is based on similar criteria, that is, they are substantiated by a comprehensive review of all sources of data, there is sufficient evidence of significant frequency and severity, and there’s evidence of being associated with ECT device use. […]

The key risks of ECT are presented in this slide and reorganized into three different main categories.

The first category, medical and physical risks includes adverse reaction to anesthetic agents and neuromuscular blocking agents, alterations in blood pressure, cardiovascular complications, death, dental and oral trauma, pain and discomfort, physical trauma, prolonged seizures, pulmonary complications, skin burns, and stroke. The other two main categories include cognitive and memory dysfunction, and device malfunction. […]
Again, here’s the list of proposed key risks. The Panel will be asked if this is a complete and accurate list of the key risks presented by ECT and asked to comment on whether you disagree with the inclusion of any of these risks or whether you believe any other risks are among the key risks presented by ECT.
Key Risks and Mitigating Factors of ECT
I’ll now present an examination of each key risk and potential mitigating factors by reviewing this table which goes over the next three slides.

Adverse reactions to anesthesia are rare but potentially severe complications associated with ECT. These reactions are related to the use of anesthetic agents and neuromuscular blocking agents to which patients may have rare but potentially severe reactions. Potential mitigating factors may consist of pre-ECT assessment, including pertinent medical and surgical history, family history of reaction to anesthetic agents, physical exam, as well as appropriate procedure monitoring and clinical management to any reaction that may arise.
Alterations in blood pressure are common but typically benign complications associated ECT. Hypertension as well as hypotension may be associated with ECT treatment. Potential mitigating factors include pre-ECT assessment of medical, particularly cardiovascular status, appropriate procedure monitoring, and clinical management.
Cardiovascular complications are uncommon but potentially severe complications of ECT treatment. They most commonly include arrhythmias and/or ischemia. Cardiovascular complications are one of the most frequent causes of morbidity and mortality associated with ECT. Potential mitigating factors for cardiovascular complications include pre-ECT assessment which may include blood pressure assessment, pre-ECT electrocardiogram, echocardiogram or Holter monitoring, appropriate procedure monitoring, and clinical management.

Death is a rare but severe outcome of ECT treatment. It is a result of various complications of ECT such as reactions to anesthesia, cardiovascular complications, pulmonary complications, or stroke. Potential mitigating factors include those proposed for each of these key risks.

Dental and oral trauma including dental fractures, dislocations, lacerations, and prosthetic damage are uncommon complications of ECT and are generally of mild to moderate severity. Potential mitigating factors may include pre-ECT dental assessment, removal of prostheses, as well as the use of mouth protection or bite blocks during the procedure.

Pain and discomfort are common but generally mild to moderate complications of ECT. They are typically treated with the use of as-needed analgesic medication.

Physical trauma associated with ECT, they include fractures and soft tissue injury. Physical trauma usually occurs as a consequence of significant muscle contraction during the treatment. Though more prevalent in previous years of ECT use, in current practice, this key risk is uncommon. Potential mitigating factors to prevent or reduce the severity of physical trauma include the use of general anesthetic agents and neuromuscular blocking agents. 189

Prolonged seizures are an uncommon and moderate to severe complication of ECT. Status epilepticus may ensue if prolonged seizures are not properly treated. Potential mitigating factors include an appropriate pre-ECT neurological assessment as well as EEG monitoring during the procedure and the availability of rapid treatment of prolonged seizures should they occur.

Pulmonary complications, such as prolonged apnea or aspiration, are rare but potentially severe complications of ECT. With cardiovascular complications, they represent one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality associated with ECT. Potential mitigating factors include appropriate pre-ECT assessment of pulmonary function, pre- ECT tests such as chest x-ray and pulmonary function test, and appropriate monitoring and clinical management before, during, and after the procedure.

Skin burns are uncommon and typically mild complications of ECT. They most commonly occur when there’s poor contact of the electrode with the skin surface resulting in high impedance in the electrical circuit. Skin burns may be mitigated by proper skin preparation, electrode contact, including the use of conductivity gel.

Stroke is a rare and potentially severe complication that may be associated with ECT. Potential mitigating factors include pre-ECT assessment of risk factors for stroke, including possible neuroimaging or cardiovascular and neurovascular assessment when appropriate, appropriate procedure monitoring, and clinical management during the treatment.

The issue of inadequate informed consent processes and/or forced treatment has been raised in the public docket, in the MAUDE database, and in the published literature. Critics of the informed consent process claim that if individuals are inadequately or inaccurately informed of the risks of ECT, the risk/benefit assessment is altered.

One potential mitigating factor for inadequate consent is the requirement of a more rigorous informed consent process. Such a process would help to ensure that the patient is making a fully informed decision about receiving treatment. The process would consist of outlining a more rigorous consent process in the user labeling of the device that would require the use of an additional checklist in addition to standard written informed consent procedure. This checklist would contain all known risks of device usage, the likelihood of occurrence, and the potential severity.

During the process, the treating physician and patient would be required to review each item with both parties signing off to acknowledge discussion of the item. This checklist could then be kept with the standard written informed consent documentation, and the criteria for patient capacity to consent to treatment and perform the acceptance of risk through this process would remain unchanged. Acceptance of risk checklist may be a useful special control for addressing the risks of ECT device use. Within FDA, there’s precedence for requiring such additional informed consent requirements.
Please keep this discussion of key risks and potential mitigating factors in mind in your deliberations of the following question regarding whether the medical and physical risks of ECT can be adequately mitigated. […]
Related Articles

Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)
By Christina Anderson
~ 1 min read

Formerly known as electroshock therapy, ECT is a controversial psychiatric treatment in which anaesthetized patients receive electrically induced seizures through the use of electrodes placed on the skull. ECT has proven effective in clinical studies for treating severe depression; it is also used to treat other disorders such as schizophrenia and mania.

Example: A patient whose severe depression has not responded well to medication opts to receive ECT treatment as a last resort. After waking up from the anaesthesia, he experiences headache and memory loss for a few hours, but once his head clears his depressive symptoms are markedly reduced.

The frequency of these treatments is related to the severity of the symptoms experienced and how much of an improvement is seen after a session. On average, most patients undergo 6-12 of these short sessions. During an ECT treatment the patient is put under general anaesthesia, so they will not be awake during the procedure.
One of the most typical symptoms after an ECT treatment is memory loss or memory impairment, where a patient may not be able to remember aspects of the procedure prior to being put under anaesthetic. Some patients may experience more significant memory loss, and may never recover some parts of their memory. There is no way to predict the level of memory loss that an individual may experience when undergoing ECT, which is another reason why ECT is seen as a last resort for treating some disorders.
To read about what to expect from an ECT treatment, please go to: http://psychcentral.com/lib/2010/what-to-expect-from-an-electroconvulsiv...

ABOUT US
What is CCHR?

Brutal Therapies: Harmful Psychiatric ‘Treatments’
DOWNLOAD BOOKLET
CCHR PUBLICATIONS
Unholy Assault
Brutal Therapies: Harmful Psychiatric “Treatments”
Introduction

Electroshock treatment—also known as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)—and psychosurgery “treatments” are reportedly trying to stage a comeback. Yet, since their inception, these procedures have been dogged by conflict between the ECT psychiatrists who swear by them, and the multitudes of victims and families of victims whose lives have been completely ruined by them.

So who is telling the truth? Anyone who has seen and been sickened by a recording of an actual ECT or psychosurgery procedure knows the answer too well. They have all the marks of physical torture methods that might instead belong in the armory of a KGB (secret police of the former Soviet Union) interrogator, rather than in the inventory of a “medical practitioner.” However, very few people have seen such recordings, including, it would seem, those who legislate their mandatory use—and fewer still have witnessed them firsthand.
Psychiatrists deceptively cloak these procedures with medical legitimacy: the hospital setting, white-coated assistants, anesthetics, muscle paralyzing drugs and sophisticated-looking equipment. The effects of shock treatment are horrific, but the full ramifications are not explained to the patients or families. Worse, when objections are raised, they are overruled.

That those procedures are extremely profitable to psychiatrists and hospitals, while resulting in continued long and expensive psychiatric “care” afterward, guaranteeing future business and income to the psychiatrist, is not mentioned in conversations to convince the unwilling or unsuspecting.

And, as Maria Garcia [not her real name] would attest, if all else fails, psychiatrists will readily resort to coercion or fear to extract “consent” for treatment.

Maria, a middle-aged Hispanic housewife, consulted a psychiatrist after feelings of depression persisted and was prescribed psychiatric drugs. After experiencing uncontrollable body movements—the direct result of drug-induced damage to her nervous system—the psychiatrist recommended ECT. She refused, but when later admitted to the hospital for drug detoxification treatment, ECT was recommended again. Although she resisted, the psychiatrist told her, “Your fears are nothing but Cuban superstitions” and “unless you have these treatments you are going to die.” She was given five shock treatments.

Her husband relates what happened: “As a result of the ECT treatments…my wife’s memory has been greatly impaired….Although she spoke English as a second language for fourty-two years, she has lost most of her ability to speak and understand it….The whole experience has been a deception, a lie, a bully’s punch….Her depression was not cured and her memory is quite defective now…we are both enraged at what has taken place. I feel as if she had been raped right in front of my eyes.”

With literally billions in profits realized from ECT and psychosurgery, there is an appalling level of misinformation about them today, most of it spread by psychiatrists. There are many scientists critical of the procedure.

Dr. John Friedberg, a neurologist who researched the effects of ECT for over thirty years, stated, “It is very hard to put into words just what shock treatment does to people generally.…it destroys people’s ambition, and…their vitality. It makes people rather passive and apathetic.…Besides the amnesia, the apathy and the lack of energy is, in my view, the reason that…[psychiatrists] still get away with giving it.”
Mary Lou Zimmerman understands about losing her ambition and her vitality at the hands of a psychiatrist. In June 2002, a jury ordered the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio to pay $7.5 million (€6 million) to the 62-year-old following a horrific psychosurgery operation. Mrs. Zimmerman had sought treatment for compulsive hand washing after she read glowing reports about the procedure on the clinic’s website. The reality was a nightmare. She was subjected to an operation in which four holes were drilled into her head and sections of her brain, each approximately the size of a marble, were removed. After the ordeal, she found she was unable to walk, stand, eat or use the bathroom by herself. Her attorney, Robert Linton, stated, “She lost everything—except her awareness of how she’s now different.…She is completely disabled and needs full-time care.”

Today, the psychiatric industry in the United States alone takes an estimated $5 billion (€4 billion) from ECT per year. In the US, 65-year-olds receive three hundred and sixty percent more electroshock than 64-year-olds, since Medicare (government health insurance) takes effect at age 65, evidence that the use of ECT is guided, not by medical compassion, but by profit and greed. Although psychosurgery is less common today, up to three hundred operations are still performed every year in the United States, including the notorious prefrontal lobotomy.

In spite of their sophisticated trappings of science, the brutality of ECT and psychosurgery verifies that psychiatry has not advanced beyond the cruelty and barbarism of its earliest treatments. This report has been written to help ensure that just as whipping, leeching and flogging are now unlawful, these “treatments” should be prohibited or prosecuted for the criminal assault they are.
Sincerely,

Jan Eastgate
President, Citizens Commission
on Human Rights International
»

CCHR PUBLICATIONS

REHAB FRAUD: PSYCHIATRY’S DRUG SCAM
Introduction
What hope is there?
Wouldn’t a universal, proven cure for drug addiction be a good thing? And is it possible?
First, let’s clearly define what is meant by “cure.” For the individual a cure means complete and permanent absence of any overwhelming physical or mental desire, need or compulsion to take drugs. For the society it means the rehabilitation of the addict as a consistently honest, ethical, productive and successful member. In the 1970s, this first question would have seemed rather strange, if not absurd.
“Of course that would be a good thing!” and “Are you kidding?” would have been common responses.

Today, however, the responses are considerably different. A drug addict might answer, “Look, don’t talk to me about cures. I’ve tried every program there is and failed. None of them work.” Or, “You can’t cure heredity; my father was an alcoholic.” A layperson might say, “They’ve already cured it; methadone, isn’t it?” Or, “They’ve found it’s an incurable brain disease; you know, like diabetes, it can’t be cured.” Or even, “Science found it can’t be helped; it’s something to do with a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

Very noticeable would be the absence of the word, even the idea, of cure, whether amongst addicts, families of addicts, government officials, media or anywhere else.

In its place are words like disease, illness, chronic, management, maintenance, reduction and relapse. Addicts in rehab are taught to refer to themselves as “recovering,” never “cured.” Stated in different ways, the implicit consensus that has been created is that drug addiction is incurable and something an addict will have to learn to live with—or die with.

Is all hope lost?
Before considering that question, it is very important to understand one thing about drug rehabilitation today. Our hope of a cure for drug addiction was not lost; it was buried by an avalanche of false information and false solutions.

First of all, consider psychiatrists’ long-term propagation of dangerous drugs as “harmless”:

• In the 1960s, psychiatrists made LSD not only acceptable, but an “adventure” to tens of ¬thousands of college students, promoting the false concept of improving life through “recreational,” mind-altering drugs.

• In 1967, US psychiatrists met to discuss the role of drugs in the year 2000. Influential New York psychiatrist Nathan Kline, who served on ¬committees for the US National Institute of Mental Health and the World Health Organization stated, “In principle, I don’t see that drugs are any more abnormal than reading, music, art, yoga, or twenty other things—if you take a broad point of view.”

• In 1973, University of California psychiatrist, Louis J. West, wrote, “Indeed a debate may soon be raging among some clinical scientists on the question of whether clinging to the drug-free state of mind is not an antiquated position for anyone—physician or patient—to hold.”

• In the 1980s, Californian psychiatric drug ¬specialist, Ronald K. Siegel, made the outrageous assertion that being drugged is a basic human “need,” a “fourth drive” of the same nature as sex, hunger and thirst.

• In 1980, a study in the Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry claimed that, “taken no more than two or three times per week, cocaine creates no serious problems.”

• According to the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s office in Connecticut, the false belief that cocaine was not addictive contributed to the dramatic rise in its use in the 1980s.

• In 2003, Charles Grob, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of California Harbor Medical Center believed that Ecstasy ¬(hallucinogenic street drug) was potentially “good medicine” for treating alcoholism and drug abuse.

Today, drug regulatory agencies all over the world approve clinical trials for the use of hallucinogenic drugs to handle anything from anxiety to alcoholism, despite the drugs being known to cause psychosis.

The failure of the war against drugs is largely due to the failure to stop one of the most dangerous drug pushers of all time: the psychiatrist. The sad irony is that he has also established himself in positions enabling him to control the drug rehab field, even though he can show no results for the billions awarded by governments and legislatures. Governments, groups, families, and individuals that continue to accept his false information and drug rehabilitation techniques, do so at their own peril. The odds overwhelmingly predict that they will fail in every respect.

Drug addiction is not a disease. Real solutions do exist.
Clearing away psychiatry’s false information about drugs and addiction is not only a fundamental part of restoring hope, it is the first step towards achieving real drug rehabilitation.
Sincerely,

Jan Eastgate
President
Citizens Commission
on Human Rights International

International mental health watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights calls for public action to oppose a proposal by the U.S. FDA to reclassify electroconvulsive (ECT) devices as being low risk, despite the documented health risks. The group has also launched a new public service announcement on the dangers of ECT as a part of this call to action.

You can make a public comment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) here: 1.usa.gov/1P0aMfh

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP CALLS FOR ACTION TO STOP WIDESPREAD USE OF BRAIN-DAMAGING ELECTROSHOCK TREATMENT

March 11, 2016
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has launched a public service announcement (PSA) warning about the documented risks of electroshock treatment. The PSA calls for survivors of the treatment, their families, healthcare professionals and others to urgently oppose the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) plan to reclassify the electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) device as low risk. CCHR was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and eminent psychiatrist, Prof. Thomas Szasz. It has been responsible for dozens of laws in the U.S. and around the world either implementing informed consent or a prohibition of ECT for some age groups.

“[G]iven the volume of evidence demonstrating its substantive brain-damaging outcomes, we call for an immediate global ban on the use of electroshock on all children. — Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, Assoc. Professor, York University, et al., 2014 study on ECT”
CCHR charges that device makers should fulfill a mandate that the FDA gave them in 1979 to provide clinical evidence of safety and efficacy.[1] To date, this has not been done.
Despite this and while acknowledging “significant risks associated with ECT,” the FDA plans to reduce the risk classification given to the device in 1976 and has given a deadline of March 28, 2016 for people to comment on its proposal.[2] CCHR urges people to report any knowledge of ECT damage by logging onto the FDA site.
You can make a public comment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) here: http://1.usa.gov/1P0aMfh

ECT is administered to 100,000 U.S. citizens each year.[3] Yet, the FDA lists fourteen health risks associated with ECT, including:

“Death may result from various complications of ECT such as reactions to anesthesia, cardiovascular complications, pulmonary complications, or stroke.”
“Cardiovascular complications. The…convulsions may be accompanied by arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat) or ischemia/infarction (i.e., heart attack). Hypertension (high blood pressure) as well as hypotension (low blood pressure) may be associated with ECT treatment.”

“Cognition and memory impairment. ECT treatment may result in memory impairment, specifically immediate post-treatment disorientation, anterograde memory impairment [loss of the ability to create new memories] and retrograde personal memory impairment [loss of memory-access to events that occurred, or information that was learned, before an injury].”[2]

According to an announcement of the pending rule change from the FDA, the agency is proposing changing the classification of ECT devices “for use in treating severe major depressive episode (MDE) associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BPD) in patients 18 years of age and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition.”[2]

CCHR says that because the FDA does not regulate medical practice, if it reclassifies the device, it could potentially open the door to widespread use of electroshock, including on children. It is already being studied for use on autistic children.[4]
Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International says: “Because the FDA does not regulate medical practice, classifying the ECT device as Class II for any ‘disorders’ opens the door to a massive potential for off label use and possible enforced treatment of involuntarily detained patients and children.”

A 2014 study by Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, et al. stated: “The ongoing and growing interest within psychiatry in prescribing electroshock or shock-like procedures for treating certain behaviors or conditions deemed psychoneurologic in children is of grave concern, given that the plethora of evidence that electroshock has at its very core an intent to damage and incapacitate the brain appears to be ignored.” The authors concluded that “given the volume of evidence demonstrating its substantive brain-damaging outcomes, we call for an immediate global ban on the use of electroshock on all children.”[4]
A February 16, 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment report defined procedures such as electroshock without the consent of the patient as a form of torture.[5]

Eastgate says, “Anyone concerned about patient protections and safeguarding lives should immediately oppose the FDA’s harmful proposal.”

References:
[1] Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 172, September 4, 1979, pages 51776-51777, reporting 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 882, [Docket No. 78N-1103], ia600307.us.archive.org/3/items/federalregister44tunit/federalregister44tunit.pdf (page 490 of PDF).

[2] Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy, “Neurological Devices; Reclassification of Electroconvulsive Therapy Devices Intended for Use in Treating Severe Major Depressive Episode in Patients 18 Years of Age and Older Who Are Treatment Resistant or Require a Rapid Response; Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for Electroconvulsive Therapy for Certain Specified Intended Uses,” December 18, 2015, 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 882, Federal Register Number 2015-32592, regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1210-0001
[3] “Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT).” Mental Health America, mentalhealthamerica.net/ect
[4] Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, et al., “The Utmost Discretion: How Presumed Prudence Leaves Children Susceptible to Electroshock,” CHILDREN and SOCIETY, Vol. 28, 205-217 (2014), chrysm-associates.co.uk/images/vanDaalen-Smith&Breggin2014_ECTchildren.pdf
[5] A/HRC/22/53, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez,” United Nations, General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Twenty-second Session, Agenda Item 3, 1 Feb. 2013, p. 21, para 85,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session....

Teaming Up With the NAACP to Stop Psychiatric Abuse of Black America

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Electric shock treatment

Cchr.com
Common well documented side effects of psychiatric drugs include mania, psychosis, hallucinations, depersonalization, suicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke and sudden death
Not only that but the u.s. food and drug administration admits that probably one to ten percent of all the adverse drug effects are actually reported by patients or physicians

ECT is administered to 100,000 U.S. citizens each year.[3] Yet, the FDA lists fourteen health risks associated with ECT, including:
“Death may result from various complications of ECT such as reactions to anesthesia, cardiovascular complications, pulmonary complications, or stroke.”

“Cardiovascular complications. The…convulsions may be accompanied by arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat) or ischemia/infarction (i.e., heart attack). Hypertension (high blood pressure) as well as hypotension (low blood pressure) may be associated with ECT treatment.”

“Cognition and memory impairment. ECT treatment may result in memory impairment, specifically immediate post-treatment disorientation, anterograde memory impairment [loss of the ability to create new memory/personal memory impairment [loss of memory-access to events that occurred, or information that was learned, before an injury].”

Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International says: “Because the FDA does not regulate medical practice, classifying the ECT device as Class II for any ‘disorders’ opens the door to a massive potential for off label use and possible enforced treatment of involuntarily detained patients and children.”

A 2014 study by Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, et al. stated: “The ongoing and growing interest within psychiatry in prescribing electroshock or shock-like procedures for treating certain behaviors or conditions deemed psychoneurologic in children is of grave concern, given that the plethora of evidence that electroshock has at its very core an intent to damage and incapacitate the brain appears to be ignored.” The authors concluded that “given the volume of evidence demonstrating its substantive brain-damaging outcomes, we call for an immediate global ban on the use of electroshock on all children.”[4]

A February 16, 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment report defined procedures such as electroshock without the consent of the patient as a form of torture.[5]

“[G]iven the volume of evidence demonstrating its substantive brain-damaging outcomes, we call for an immediate global ban on the use of electroshock on all children. — Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, Assoc. Professor, York University, et al., 2014 study on ECT”

PSYCHIATRY ADMITS IT HAS NO CURES

In 1963, the United States’ National Institute of Mental Health implemented community mental health programmes. By 1994, the program had spent £30.5 billion and was clearly a failure—with associated clinics becoming little more than legalised drug pushers for the homeless.

“We do not know the causes [of any mental illness]. We don’t have the methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” —Dr. Rex Cowdry, psychiatrist and director of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 1995
“The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill have to learn to live with their illness.” —Norman Satorius, president of the World Psychiatric Association in 1994

“What’s a cure?…it’s just that it’s a term that we don’t use in the medical [psychiatric] profession.” —Dr. Joseph Johnson, California psychiatrist during court deposition,

2003

Psychiatrists were surveyed about their “fantasies” about their practice. Their Number 1 fantasy was: 1: “…I will be able to ‘cure’ the patient.” The Number 2 fantasy was: “The patient wants to know what his or her problem is.” —Dr. Sander Berger, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Michigan State University, Psychiatric Times, 1998
Common and well-documented side effects of psychiatric drugs include mania, psychosis, hallucinations, depersonalization, suicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke and sudden death.
No Genetic Proof of Mental Illnesses

“No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation.” —Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist
“….modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biological cause of any single mental illness.” —David Kaiser, psychiatrist

“In fourty years, ‘biological’ psychiatry has yet to validate a single psychiatric condition/diagnosis as an abnormality/disease, or as anything ‘neurological,’ ‘biological,’ ‘chemically-imbalanced’ or ‘genetic.’” —Dr. Fred Baughman Jr., child neurologist, Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology

from katrinesackett32463 whitelady(5'3)(5'2 1/2)
date march 2019
information can be found under google
look under cchr com under google

Views: 
991
Post type: 
Author: 
lizabeths