A woman has become the first survivor of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, shock treatment) to win a jury verdict and a large money judgment in compensation for extensive permanent amnesia and cognitive disability caused by the procedure.

Peggy S. Salters, 60, sued Palmetto Baptist Medical Center in Columbia, as well as the three doctors responsible for her care. As the result of an intensive course of outpatient ECT in 2000, she lost all memories of the past 30 years of her life, including all memories of her husband of three decades, now deceased, and the births of her three children. Ms. Salters held a Masters of Science in nursing and had a long career as a psychiatric nurse, but lost her knowledge of nursing skills and was unable to return to work after ECT.

The jury awarded her $635,177 in compensation for her inability to work. The malpractice verdict was against the referring doctor, Eric Lewkowiez. The jury could not return a verdict against the other two doctors because of one holdout vote for acquittal. The hospital settled its liability for an undisclosed sum early in the trial.

Former patients have reported devastating, permanent amnesia and cognitive impairment since ECT was first invented in 1938, but that has not hindered the treatment's popularity with doctors. The first lawsuit for ECT amnesia, Marilyn Rice v. John Nardini, was brought exactly thirty years ago, and dozens of suits have followed. While there have been a few settlements, including one for half a million dollars, no former patient has won a case until now

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who served as Ms. Salters' expert witness, was also the expert in Rice v. Nardini, and has appeared for plaintiffs many times over the past three decades without success. Psychologist Mary E. Shea presented extensive neuropsychological testing proving to the jury's satisfaction that Ms. Salters suffers dementia due to ECT brain damage.

Expert for the defense was Charles Kellner of New Jersey, formerly of the Medical University of South Carolina. He testified that giving Ms. Salters' 13 shocks in 19 days, instead of 26 days as is usual, was not a violation of the American Psychiatric Association guidelines. However, his assertions that Ms. Salters' severe suicidality justified the controversial treatment could not be substantiated by the medical records. 82-year-old Max Fink of New York, widely regarded as the "grandfather of shock" and the author of many books and articles on ECT, was scheduled to testify for the defense, but in the end only watched the trial from the courtroom. The defense did not call him as a witness due to incriminating statements made under oath at his deposition

For the past three decades, defense attorneys have won case after case by the same strategy: browbeating the jury with the plaintiff's psychiatric history, playing upon the prevailing cultural notions that mental patients are incapable of telling the truth and doctors don't lie; even claiming that mental illness causes amnesia and brain damage. Even neurological testing showing brain damage has been brushed aside. Peggy Salters' case is the first in which a former ECT patient has been believed. She says she sees it as a victory for all ECT survivors.

Attorney for Ms. Salters, Mark Hardee, can be reached at (803) 799- 0905. Peggy Salters can be reached at (803)736-4444. Fink's deposition is available from either of them Additional information:
Case 03CP4004797
Richland County, South Carolina
Peggy S. Salters vs. Palmetto Health Alliance, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto Baptist Medical Center; Robt. Schnackenberg, M.D., Individually, Eric Lewkowiez, M.D., Individually, Columbia Psychiatric Associates, P.A.; and Kenneth Huggins, M.D., Individually Filed October 03, 2003 Decided June 17, 2005

For the first time, a product liability suit against a shock machine manufacturer has resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff. The suit was brought by Imogene Rohovit of Iowa City, Iowa, and her daughter alleging that Mrs. Rohovit, a single mother and a former nurse had been brain damaged and rendered unable to work by shocks inflicted by the MECTA Model D machine in 1989.

MECTA Corp and the Model D were also the subjects of the first product liability lawsui against a shock machine company in 1987. The suit claimed that MECTA's machine was designed to produce and did routinley produce permanent memory and brain damge (not that the machine was defective in any way). A judge initially ruled against MECTA which then offered a settlement of $105,000. The offer was rejected but an appellgate judge ruled MECTA did not have to go to trial.

No shock machine has ever been pulled off the market, but even shock doctors now warn others not to use the powerful Model D. It was sold in the early 1980's and are still used. However, proclaimed shock "expert" Harold Sackeim testified at trial that he does not use the Model D on human beings but only on research animals. MECTA President Robin Nichol has testified that MECTA has never performed a single test on its machines.

MECTA insisted on a gag order, meaning that the exact amount of the settlement cannot be disclosed by the parties. The settlement was in 1995. It is believed to be higher than the first settlement offer but the plaintiffs expect to see little of the money due to the high costs of bringing the case against Mrs. Rohovit's doctor to trial. The trial lasted three weeks and the case was lost. Mrs. Rohovit's attorney, Marc Humphries of Des Moines, Iowa cites recent attempts to limit or eliminate all types of product liability lawsuits as a factor in the settlement decision. But if these attempts fail, the Rohovit case could encourage other suit

Thursday, 10 Jun 2004 8:37:38

MONTREAL - A Montreal woman who underwent intense electroshock treatment in a programfunded by the CIA 50 years ago has been awarded $100,000.

Gail Kastner was given massive electroshock therapy to treat depression in 1953 at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal. She was told on Wednesday of the compensation award.

She was left out of a federal compensation package in 1994 because her treatment was deemed to have been less intense than that of other victims of the experiments. Her treatment was also found to have had fewer long-term effects. A Federal Court judge reversed that ruling, and awarded her the same amount Ottawa gave to 77 others as compensation for their treatment. There were 253 claims rejected.

Dr. Ewan Cameron, who was director of the Allan Memorial Institute, conducted experiments using electroshock and drug-induced sleep. The research was funded from 1950 to 1965 by the CIA and by the Canadian government.

Written by CBC News Online staff

On October 15, 2005 a Virginia jurydelivered a $1.6 million verdict in a tardive dyskinesia case, Sylvia Jones v.Jeffrey Alan Margolis. The amount was especially large considering the small town setting of Tappahannock in southeastern Virginia. Also, the defendant was a well- known internist in the community.

In 1982 when she was twenty-one years old, her original internist placed Sylvia Jones on Triavil, a combination of the neuroleptic perphenazine (Trilafon) and the antidepressant amitriptyline (Elavil). At that time she had situational stresses that were causing anxiety. Although her most of her symptoms of anxiety cleared up during the earlier years, her original internist maintained her on the drug until 1997. Perphenazine is indicated for the treatment of psychosis but at no time has Mrs. Jones displayed any symptoms of psychosis.

In 1997 internist Alan Margolis, M.D. took over Mrs. Jones treatment and increased the dose of Triavil. Although she no longer suffered from any serious symptoms of anxiety, Dr. Margolis maintained her on this drug until February 2003 when she developed a severe, painful and crippling torticollis (spasm of her neck). Subsequent physicians diagnosed her as suffering from neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia, a disorder that can afflict any voluntary muscle, including the face, neck, torso, and extremities, as well as speech, breathing and swallowing.

Since 1997 Mrs. Jones has been completely disabled by a variety of motor abnormalities associated with tardive dyskinesia. In addition to the spasms of her neck, her shoulders twist severely and she has facial and abdominal spasms. Her vocal cords are impaired, producing an abnormal tone of voice. She is weakened and cannot carry out tasks requiring coordination or strength. She suffers from chronic pain. Humiliation over her appearance has caused her to be socially isolated.

At no time during her treatment did Dr. Margolis adequately justify the use of a neuroleptic. He failed to monitor the patient, at one point prescribing for her over a period of more than two years without seeing her. He performed no examinations for TD, and he gave no warnings or education concerning the risks and symptoms of TD.

In defense of Dr. Margolis, a Florida psychiatrist argued that the TD wasn't caused by the twenty years of neuroleptic exposure but by the very last dose that the patient supposedly took after her last visit with Dr. Margolis. A well-known Washington, DC internist argued that Dr. Margolis didn't have to give the patient any warnings or education concerning TD since he was certain this information had< been given by her original doctor twenty years earlier, even though that deceased doctor's records no longer existed.

Peter R. Breggin, M.D. conducted the initial evaluation of the case and provided consultation in planning the case and then in the courtroom during the trial. Originally scheduled as a rebuttal witness to the defense experts, Dr.Breggin did not need to testify because the defense was so weak that no rebuttal was required. Two treating physicians testified on behalf of Mrs. Jones.

The plaintiff's attorney Paul Curley is located in Richmond, Virginia (804 673 6600). He worked closely with Dr. Breggin and developed a thorough knowledge of tardive dyskinesia.

You can listen to a documentary about Dr. Ewen Cameron via the internet at this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nesa/n5ctrl/scotland/frontline/19oct.ram/ A great documentary, worth seeing for sure!

This documentary is an eye opener and informative.


LAWSUITS RELATING TO ECT AND THE DAMAGE IT CAUSES TO PEOPLE (website www.ect.org)

Shock therapy patients to sue
http://www.ect.org/news/sue.html

UK settlement
http://www.ect.org/news/leeds.html

Electric shock suit condemns hospital
http://www.ect.org/news/sanfransuit.html

Woman says electric shock treatment destroyed her life
http://www.ect.org/news/woman.html

Ontario lawsuit
http://www.ect.org/news/ontsuit.html

Soldier sues
http://www.ect.org/news/soldiersuit.html

Nurse wins lawsuit
http://www.npg.com/npg/case0329.htm


Don Weitz from Toronto can contacted by email: dweitz@pathcom.comdweitz@pathcom.com


April 23, 2004
Food and Drug Administration Dockets Management Re:Docket #2003P-0555
5630 Fisher Lane, Room 1061 (HFA-305) Rockville, MD 20852 USA
fdadockets@oc.fda.gov

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am writing to support the hundreds of previous petitions, including those shock survivors - members of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry in December 2003 urging you not to change the classification of electroshock (ECT) machines from its current Class III- or hi-risk/unsafe category to Class II/safe category.

I understand the FDA plans to move the shock machines into Class II. This would be a very serious error in judgment besides being unscientific. Since the FDA has never conducted its own inspections or tests on these machines to determine their medical safety, it has no scientific or rational basis to conclude that the shock machines are safe. If the FDA conducts risk safety tests, I'm confident the findings would clearly and convincingly indicate the serious harm caused by these shock machines - brain damage, permanent memory loss, learning disability, and even death. The fact that these machines are still in use without the required independent and scientific evaluation of their medical safety is inexcusable and irresponsible, unethical, and extremely dangerous. Major and tragic effects of electroshock: brain damage or electricially induced closed head injury and permanent memory loss have been scientifically documented for over fifty years since the 1940s. In addition, well over 400 deaths were caused by or related to electroshock have been reported in the English language medical literature since 1942 (see Frank, 1990 below)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Psychiatric Association should not continue to ignore or seriously minimize these and many published scientific studies:

Peter R. Breggin. M.D. (1997) The Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Role of the FDA, - Springer Publishing Co, 119-156

John Friedberg, M.D. (1997) Shock Treatment, Brain Damage and Memory Loss: A Neurological Perspective - American Journal of Psychiatry, l34, 1010-1014

Leonard Roy Frank (1990) Electroshock: Death, Brain Damage, Memory Loss and Brain Washing -Journal of Mind and Behaivour, 11, 489-512

Douglas G. Cameron (199) ECT: Sham Statistics, the myth of convulsive therapy and the cause for consumer misinformation - Journal of Mind and Behaviour - Winter/Spring l5, 179-198

Robert Morgan, Ph.d (1991) Electroshock: The Cause Against, Toronto - IPI Publishing

It's also worth remembering the universally recognized warning - the Hippocratic Oath - that all physicians are required to swear "FIRST DO NO HARM" Everytime a physician adminsters electroshock by pushing a button or pressing a lever on a shock machine releasing 175-200 + volts of electricity to the brain, he is she is violating this Oath again. I urge you to keep unsafe and harmful shock machines in your Class III category until the memory destroying and brain disabling psychiatric procedure of electroshock is banned. I would appreciate your reply.
Sincerely, Don Weitz, psychiatric survivor,
Co-founder - Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA) Toronto cc: Committee for the Truth in Psychiatry

NOTE: Don Weitz's writes - I sent this letter as an op/ed piece to the Toronto Star Newspaper a few months ago - they rejected my letter. Also, I had no reply from the FDA. Like the vast majority of other mainstream media in Canada, the Toronto Star is a PR agent for bio-psychiatry - it promotes the medical model, brain disabling drugs and electroshock while minimizing and denying the brain damage and permanent memory loss caused by electroshock.

Loren R. Mosher M. D.
2616 Angell Ave
San Diego, CA 92122

December 4 199

Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President
American Psychiatric Association
1400 94 Street N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Rod;

After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.

Unfortunately, APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent society. Yet, it helps wage war on drugs. Dual Diagnosis clients are a major problem for the field but not because of the good drugs we prescribe. Bad ones are those that are obtained mostly without a prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist organization, APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a profit - directly or indirectly.

This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation.

Anyone with the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would observe how the drug company exhibits and industry sponsored symposia draw crowds with their various enticements while the serious scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric training reflects their influence as well; i.e., the most important part of a resident curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e., prescription writing.

These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer do we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts rather we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The problem is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a neurotransmitter whatever its configuration.

So, our guild organization provides a rationale, by its neurobiological tunnel vision, for keeping our distance from the molecule conglomerates we have come to define as patients. We condone and promote the widespread overuse and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long term effects: tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and serious withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who treats molecules with their formulary? No, thank you very much. It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. This is a matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical house connection, money.

In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an organization) such that the two organizations have adopted similar public belief systems about the nature of madness. While professing itself the champion of their clients the APA is supporting non- clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring. NAMI, with tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy committment- institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their offspring.

For the most part we stand by and allow this fascistic agenda to move forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, is allowed to diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the NAMI organization with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of medical ethics. Does APA protest? Of course not, because he is speaking what APA agrees with but can't explicitly espouse. He is allowed to be a foil; after all he is no longer a member of APA. (Slick work APA!) The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience between APA, NAMI and the drug companies (who gleefully support both groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.

Biologically based brain diseases are convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against personal responsibility. We are just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent example). So, to be consistent with this "brain disease" view all the major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them.

I believe they would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals. However, consistency would demand our giving over "biologic brain diseases" to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership.

I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being systemically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It must mean, at least in part, that they view psychiatry as being very limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are headed toward a situation in which, except for academics, most psychiatric practitioners will have no real relationships, so vital to the healing process, with the disturbed and disturbing persons they treat. Their sole role will be that of prescription writers, ciphers in the guise of being "helpers".

Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so, although its brief apologia is rarely noted. DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best seller - its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax, as practiced today

What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after experiencing three decades of its history?

1.. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy alliances without the members' permission.

2.. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what it is - that is, be honest.

3.. Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups, i. e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.

4.. Talk to the membership; I can't be alone in my views.

We seem to have forgotten a basic principle: the need to be patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are your patient's employee." In the end they will determine whether or not psychiatry survives in the service marketplace.

Sincerely,

Loren R. Mosher M. D.


Dr. Mosher died in July 2004. He was a pioneer in establishing programs of psychosocial community care in the field of psychiatry (e.g., Soteria House); his many publications in that regard have been very influential [E.g., Mosher, L., & Burti, L. (1989). Community mental health: Principles and Practice. New York: Norton.] TESTIMONY OF LEONARD ROY FRANK AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON ELECTROCONVULSIVE "TREATMENT" BEFORE THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE OF
THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, MARTIN A. LUSTER (CHAIRMAN), MANHATTAN,
18 MAY 2001


My name is Leonard Roy Frank, from San Francisco, and I'm here representing the Support Coalition International based in Eugene, Oregon. SCI unites 100 sponsoring groups who oppose all forms of psychiatric oppression and support humane approaches for assisting people said to be "mentally ill." This year the United Nations recognized Support Coalition International as "a Non-Governmental Organization with Consultative Roster Status."

I've taken the epigraph for my presentation from a talk on the Holocaust by Hadassah Lieberman, the wife of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, which was rebroadcast on C-SPAN last month. She quoted the Bal Shem Tov, founder of Hasidism: "In remembrance lies the secret of redemption."

INTRODUCTION

Some personal background is relevant to the substance of my testimony: I was born in 1932 in Brooklyn and was raised there. After graduating from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, I served in the U.S. Army and then worked as a real estate salesman for several years. In 1962, three years after moving to San Francisco, I was diagnosed as a "paranoid schizophrenic" and committed to a psychiatric institution where I was forcibly subjected to 50 insulin-coma and 35 electroconvulsive procedures.

This was the most painful and humiliating experience of my life. My memory for the three preceding years was gone. The wipe-out in my mind was like a path cut across a heavily chalked blackboard with a wet eraser. Afterwards, I didn't know that John F. Kennedy was president although he had been elected three years earlier. There< were also big chunks of memory loss for events and periods spanning my entire life; my high school and college education was effectively destroyed. I felt that every part of me was less than what it had been.

Following years of study reeducating myself, I became active in the
psychiatric survivors movement, becoming a staff member of Madness
Network News (1972) and co-founding the Network Against Psychiatric
Assault (1974) -- both based in San Francisco and dedicated to ending
abuses in the psychiatric system. In 1978 I edited and published The
History of Shock Treatment. Since 1995, three books of quotations I
edited have been published: Influencing Minds, Random House Webster's
Quotationary, and Random House Webster's Wit & Humor Quotationary.

Over the last thirty-five years I have researched the various shock
procedures, particularly electroshock or ECT, have spoken with
hundreds of ECT survivors, and have corresponded with many others.
> From all these sources and my own experience, I have concluded that
ECT is a brutal, dehumanizing, memory-destroying, intelligence-
lowering, brain-damaging, brainwashing, life-threatening technique.
ECT robs people of their memories, their personality and their
humanity. It reduces their capacity to lead full, meaningful lives;
it crushes their spirits. Put simply, electroshock is a method for
gutting the brain in order to control and punish people who fall or
step out of line, and intimidate others who are on the verge of doing
so.

BRAIN DAMAGE

Brain damage is the most important effect of ECT. Brain damage is, in
fact, the 800-pound gorilla in the living room whose existence
psychiatrists refuse to acknowledge, at least publicly. Nowhere is
this more clearly illustrated than in the American Psychiatric
Association's 2001 Task Force Report on The Practice of
Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training,
and Privileging, 2nd ed. (p. 102), which states that "in light of the
accumulated body of data dealing with structural effects of
ECT, 'brain damage' should not be included [in the ECT consent form]
as a potential risk of treatment."

But 50 years ago, when some proponents were careless with the truth
about ECT, Paul H. Hoch, co-author of a major psychiatric textbook
and New York State's Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, commented, "This
brings us for a moment to a discussion of the brain damage produced
by electroshock.... Is a certain amount of brain damage not necessary
in this type of treatment? Frontal lobotomy indicates that
improvement takes place by a definite damage of certain parts of the
brain." ("Discussion and Concluding Remarks," Journal of Personality,
1948, vol. 17, pp. 48-51)

More recently, neurologist Sidney Sament backed the brain-damage
charge in a letter to Clinical Psychiatry News (March 1983, p. 11):

"After a few sessions of ECT the symptoms are those of moderate
cerebral contusion, and further enthusiastic use of ECT may result in
the patient functioning at a subhuman level.

Electroconvulsive therapy in effect may be defined as a controlled
type of brain damage produced by electrical means....

In all cases the ECT 'response' is due to the concussion-type, or
more serious, effect of ECT. The patient 'forgets' his symptoms
because the brain damage destroys memory traces in the brain, and the
patient has to pay for this by a reduction in mental capacity of
varying degree."

Additional evidence of ECT-caused brain damage was published in an
earlier APA Task Force Report on Electroconvulsive Therapy (1978).
Forty-one percent of a large group of psychiatrists responding to a
questionnaire agreed with the statement that ECT produces "slight or
subtle brain damage." Only 28 percent disagreed (p. 4).

And finally there is the evidence from the largest published survey
of ECT-related deaths. In his Diseases of the Nervous System article
titled "Prevention of Fatalities in Electroshock Therapy" (July
1957), psychiatrist David J. Impastato, a leading ECT proponent,
reported 66 "cerebral" deaths among the 235 cases in which he was
able to determine the likely cause of death following ECT (p. 34).

MEMORY LOSS

If brain damage is electroshock's most important effect, memory loss
is its most obvious one. Such loss can be, and often is, devastating
as these statements from electroshock survivors indicate:

"My memory is terrible, absolutely terrible. I can't even remember
Sarah's first steps, and that's really hurtful... losing the memory
of the kids growing up was awful."

"I can be reading a magazine and I get halfway through or nearly to
the end and I can't remember what it's about, so I've got to read it
all over again."

"People would come up to me in the street that knew me and would tell
me how they knew me and I had no recollection of them at all... very
frightening." (Lucy Johnstone, "Adverse Psychological Effects of
ECT," Journal of Mental Health, 1999, vol. 8, p. 78)

Electroshock proponents are dismissive of the memory problems
associated with use of their procedure. The following is from the
sample ECT consent form in the APA's 2001 Task Force Report (pp. 321-
322): "The majority of patients state that the benefits of ECT
outweigh the problems with memory. Furthermore, most patients report
that their memory is actually improved after ECT. Nonetheless, a
minority of patients report problems in memory that remain for months
or even years." The text of the Report supplies flimsy documentation
for the claims in the first two sentences, but the third sentence, at
least, is closer to the truth than coverage of the same point in the
sample consent form of the first edition of the APA's Task Force
Report (1990, p. 158) which reads, "A small minority of patients,
perhaps 1 in 200, report severe problems in memory that remain for
months or even years." And even the more recent Report underestimates
the prevalence of memory loss among ECT survivors.

The vast majority of the hundreds of survivors I've communicated with
over the last three decades experience moderate-to-severe amnesia
going back two years and more from the time they underwent ECT. That
these findings do not appear in published ECT studies may be
accounted for by the bias of electroshock investigators, virtually
all of whom are ECT proponents, by denial (from ECT-induced brain
damage) on the part of participants and their fear of punitive
sanctions if they were to report the extent and persistence of their
memory loss, and finally by the difficulty in having anything
published in a mainstream professional journal that seriously
threatens the vested interests of an important segment of the
psychiatric community.

DEATH

The 2001 Task Force Report on ECT states, "a reasonable current
estimate is that the rate of ECT-related mortality is 1 per 10,000
patients" (p. 59). But some studies suggest that the ECT death rate
is about one in 200. This rate, however, may not reflect the true
situation because now elderly persons are being electroshocked in
growing numbers: statistics based on California's mandated ECT
reporting system indicate that upwards of 50 percent of all ECT
patients are 60 years of age and older.

Because of infirmity and disease, the elderly are more vulnerable to
ECT's harmful, and sometimes lethal, effects than younger people. A
1993 study involved 65 patients, 80 and older, who were hospitalized
for major depression. Here are the facts drawn from this study: The
patients were divided into 2 groups. One group of 37 patients was
treated with ECT; the other group, of 28 patients, with
antidepressants. After 1 year, 1 patient among the 28, or 4 percent,
in the antidepressant group was dead; while in the ECT group 10
patients among the 37, or 27 percent, were dead. (David Kroessler and
Barry Fogel, "Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major Depression in the
Oldest Old," American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Winter 1993,
p. 30)

BRAINWASHING

The term "brainwashing" came into the language during the early
1950s. It originally identified the technique of intensive
indoctrination, combining psychological and physical pressure,
developed by the Chinese for use on political dissidents following
the Communist takeover on the mainland and on American prisoners of
war during the Korean War. While electroshock is not used overtly
against political dissidents, it is used throughout most of the world
against cultural dissidents, nonconformists, social misfits and the
unhappy (the troubling and the troubled), whom psychiatrists diagnose
as "mentally ill" in order to justify ECT as a medical intervention.

Indeed, electroshock is a classic example of brainwashing in the most
meaningful sense of the term. Brainwashing means washing the brain of
its contents. Electroshock destroys memories and ideas by destroying
the brain cells which store them. As psychiatrists J. C. Kennedy and
David Anchel, both ECT proponents, described the effects of this
tabula rasa "treatment" in 1948, "Their minds seem like clean slates
upon which we can write" ("Regressive Electric-shock in
Schizophrenics Refractory to Other Shock Therapies," Psychiatric
Quarterly, vol. 22, pp. 317-320). Soon after published accounts of
the erasure of 18 minutes from secret White House audiotapes during
the Watergate investigation, another electroshock psychiatrist
reported, "Recent memory loss [from ECT] could be compared to erasing
a tape recording." (Robert E. Arnot, "Observations on the Effects of
Electric Convulsive Treatment in Man--Psychological," Diseases of the
Nervous System-, September 1975, pp. 449-502)

For these reasons, I have proposed that the procedure now called
electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) be renamed electroconvulsive
brainwashing (ECB). And ECB may be putting it too mildly. We might
ask ourselves, Why is it that 10 volts of electricity applied to a
political prisoner's private parts is seen as torture while 10 or 15
times that amount applied to the brain is called "treatment"? Perhaps
the acronym "ECT" should be retained and have the "T" stand for
torture - electroconvulsive torture.

SEVEN REASONS
If electroshock is an atrocity, as I maintain, how can its use on
more than 10 million Americans since being introduced more than 60
years ago be explained? Here are seven reasons:

1. ECT is a money-maker. Psychiatrists specializing in ECT earn
$300,000-500,000 a year compared with other psychiatrists whose mean
annual income is $150,000. An in-hospital ECT series costs anywhere
from $50,000-75,000. One-hundred thousand Americans are believed to
undergo ECT annually. Based on this figure, I estimate that
electroshock is a $5 billion-a-year industry.

2. Biological model. ECT reinforces the psychiatric belief system,
the linchpin of which is the biological model of mental illness. This
model centers on the brain and reduces most serious personal problems
down to genetic, physical, hormonal, and/or biochemical defects which
call for biological treatment of one kind or another. The biological
approach covers a spectrum of physical treatments, at one end of
which are psychiatric drugs, at the other end is psychosurgery (which
is still being used, although infrequently), with electroshock
falling somewhere between the two. The brain as psychiatry's focus of
attention and treatment is not a new idea. What psychiatrist Carl G.
Jung wrote in 1916 applies today: "The dogma that 'mental diseases
are diseases of the brain' is a hangover from the materialism of the
1870s. It has become a prejudice which hinders all progress, with
nothing to justify it." ("General Aspects of Dream Psychology," The
Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, 1960) Eighty-five years later,
there's still nothing in the way of scientific evidence to support
the brain-disease notion. The tragic irony is that the psychiatric
profession makes unsubstantiated claims that mental illness is caused
by a brain disease while hotly denying that electroshock causes brain
damage, the evidence for which is overwhelming

3. The myth of informed consent. While outright force is seldom used,
genuine informed consent is never obtained because ECT candidates can
be coerced and because electroshock specialists refuse to accurately
inform ECT candidates and their families of the procedure's nature
and effects. ECT specialists lie not only to the parties vitally
concerned, they lie to themselves and to each other. Eventually they
come to believe their own lies, and when they do, they become even
more persuasive to the naïve and uninformed. As Ralph Waldo Emerson
wrote in 1852, "A man cannot dupe others long who has not duped
himself first." Here is an instance of evil so deeply ingrained that
it's no longer recognized as such. Instead we see such outrages as
ECT specialist Robert E. Peck titling his 1974 book, The Miracle of
Shock Treatment and Max Fink, who for many years edited the leading
professional journal in the field, now called The Journal of ECT,
telling a Washington Post reporter in 1996, "ECT is one of God's
gifts to mankind." (Sandra G. Boodman, "Shock Therapy: It's Back," 24
September, Health [section], p.16)

4. Backup for treatment-resistant psychiatric-drug users. Many, if
not most, of those being electroshocked today are suffering from the
ill effects of a trial run or long-term use of antidepressant, anti-
anxiety, neuroleptic, and/or stimulant drugs, or combinations
thereof. When such effects become obvious, the patient, the patient's
family, or the treating psychiatrist may refuse to continue the drug-
treatment program. This helps explain why ECT is so necessary in
modern psychiatric practice: it is the treatment of next resort. It
is psychiatry's way of burying their mistakes without, except rarely,
killing the patient. Growing use and failure of psychiatric-drug
treatment has forced psychiatry to rely more and more on ECT as a way
of dealing with difficult, complaining patients, who often are
hurting more from the drugs than from their original problems. And
when the ECT fails to "work," there's always -- following an initial
series -- more ECT (prophylactic ECT administered periodically to
outpatients), or more drug treatment, or a combination of the two.
That drugs and ECT are for practical purposes the only methods
psychiatry offers to, or imposes on, those who seek treatment or for
whom treatment is sought is further evidence of the profession's
clinical and moral bankruptcy

5. Lack of accountability. Psychiatry has become a Teflon profession:
criticism, what little there is of it, doesn't stick. Psychiatrists
routinely carry out brutal acts of inhumanity and no one calls them
on it -- not the courts, not the government, not the people.
Psychiatry has become an out-of-control profession, a rogue
profession, a paradigm of authority without responsibility, which is
a good working definition of tyranny.

6. Government support. Not only does the federal government stand by
passively as psychiatrists continue to electroshock American citizens
in direct violation of some of their most fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, freedom from assault, and freedom
from "cruel and unusual punishment," the government also actively
supports electroshock through the licensing and funding of hospitals
where the procedure is used, by covering ECT costs in its insurance
programs (including Medicare), and by financing ECT research
(including some of the most damaging ECT techniques ever devised). A
recently published study provides an example of such research. The
ECT experiment, which was conducted at Wake Forest University School
of Medicine/North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Winston-Salem, between
1995 and 1998, reports the use of electric current at up to 12 times
the individual's convulsive threshold on as many as 36 depressed
patients.

The destructive element in ECT is the current that causes the
convulsion: the more electrical energy, the greater the brain damage.
This reckless disregard for the safety of ECT subjects was supported
by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. (W. Vaughn
McCall, David M. Begoussin, Richard D. Weiner, and Harold A.
Sackeim, "Titrated Moderately Suprathreshold vs. Fixed High-Dose
Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy: Acute Antidepressant and
Cognitive Effects," Archives of General Psychiatry, May 2000, pp. 438-
444)

7. Electroshock could never have become a major psychiatric procedure
without the active collusion and silent acquiescence of tens of
thousands of psychiatrists. Many of them know better; all of them
should know better. The active and passive cooperation of the media
has also played an essential role in expanding the use of
electroshock. Amidst a barrage of propaganda from the psychiatric
profession, the media passes on the claims of ECT proponents almost
without challenge. The occasional critical articles are one-shot
affairs, with no follow-up, which the public quickly forgets. With so
much controversy surrounding this procedure, one would think that
some investigative reporters would key on to the story. But it's
happened only rarely up to now. And the silence continues to drown
out the voices of those who need to be heard. I'm reminded of Martin
Luther King's 1963 "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," in which he
wrote "We shall have to repent in this generation not merely for the
vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling
tilence of the good people."

CONCLUSION

As noted earlier, I'm here representing the Support Coalition
International. But more significantly, I'm also here representing the
true victims of electroshock: those who have been silenced, those
whose lives have been ruined, and those who have been killed. All of
them bear witness through the words I have spoken here today.

I'll close with a short paragraph, in way of summary, and a poem I
wrote in 1989.

If the body is the temple of the spirit, the brain may be seen as the
inner sanctum of the body, the holiest of holy places. To invade,
violate, and injure the brain, as electroshock unfailingly does, is a
crime against the spirit and a desecration of the soul.

AFTERMATH

With "therapeutic" fury
search-and-destroy doctors
using instruments of infamy
conduct electrical lobotomies
in little Auschwitzes called mental hospitals

Electroshock specialists brainwash
their apologists whitewash
as silenced screams echo
from pain-treatment rooms
down corridors of shame.

Selves diminished
we return
to a world of narrowed dreams
piecing together memory fragments
for the long journey ahead.

>From the roadside
dead-faced onlookers
awash in deliberate ignorance
sanction the unspeakable --
Silence is complicity is betrayal.

Leonard Roy Frank, who lives in San Francisco, is an
electroshock/insulincoma survivor, a long-time activist for human
rights, and an editor/writer. He co-founded the Network Against
Psychiatric Assault (NAPA) in 1974 and edited The History of Shock
Treatment (self-published) in 1978. Since 1995, he has edited three
collections of quotations: Influencing Minds: A Reader in Quotations
(Feral House), Random House Webster's Quotationary, and Random House
Webster's Wit & Humor Quotations. Leonard can be reached at
lfrank@igc.org.

TESTIMONY TO THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY HEARING ON ELECTROSHOCK, July
18, 2001

John Breeding, Ph.D.
2503 Douglas St.
Austin, Texas 78741
(512) 326-8326
www.wildestcolts.com

My name is John Breeding. I am a psychologist from Austin, Texas. I
testified in New York at the hearing in May on forced electroshock,
and I am grateful to Assemblyman Luster for his enlightened
leadership and determination to investigate electroshock practice in
New York State. I am also grateful to Assemblyman Ortiz for his
resolve and leadership in proposing electroshock legislation, and to
all the other committee members for their concern about this issue.

Electroshock is practiced throughout the United States. Texas, where
I come from, has perhaps the strongest controls of any state,
including a reporting law, an emphatic demand for informed consent
for ECT, and a ban on the treatment for children under 16. New York
is unique, however, in that key research institutes, such as those at
Columbia University and the New York Psychiatric Institute are
located here, as are the electroshock industry leaders who work at
those institutions. So the Assembly's acknowledgment of the need for
investigation and consideration of legislative oversight and control
of psychiatric electroshock practice is especially important.

As a psychologist, I have worked with a number of victims of
electroshock. I have been on the advisory board of the World
Association of Electroshock Survivors, an organization consisting of
individuals who have undergone electroshock and who are now working
to ban this procedure. I implore you to understand the significance
of this group and others like it, such as the Committee for Truth in
Psychiatry, based in New York City and the larger Support Coalition
International.

Electroshock Survivors from these groups are actively organizing to
outlaw a "treatment" which their doctors declared was necessary and
would help them, even in some cases--to the point of forcing it on
them against their will! As I said in my earlier testimony, if
thousands of the patients receiving a standard medical procedure for
a physical illness had organized themselves to ban that procedure,
there would surely be a serious reevaluation of the procedure and
probably a complete moratorium until a proper investigation was
completed.

ELECTROSHOCK AND INFORMED CONSENT

Today, per Assemblyman Luster's request, I will focus on informed
consent.

A recent article of mine, called, "Electroshock and Informed
Consent," is attached to this testimony. The article cites research
that substantiates all of its points, including the following:

Electroshock causes death. Psychiatry often says 1 in 10,000. The
truth is a much higher death rate; some studies show 1 in 200.

Electroshock always causes brain damage. The question is only how
much.

Electroshock always causes memory loss. The question is only how much.

Electroshock does not prevent suicide.

Electroshock has no beneficial effects. (The supposed short-term
benefits are in reality the immediate sign of brain damage.)

Electroshock often results in cardiovascular complications or
epilepsy.

Electroshock poses extra risks for the elderly, who bear the brunt of
the treatments, including higher mortality rates.

Genuine informed consent must include the seven facts cited above,
and a good deal more. Regrettably, even the appearance of informed
consent does not guarantee its reality. Let me briefly describe four
of the many ways in which psychiatry systematically violates informed
consent.

First, there is denial and minimization of harmful effects. The
American Psychiatric Association 2001 Task Force Report on The
Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy states that "in light of the
accumulated body of data dealing with structural effects of ECT,
brain damage should not be included [in the ECT consent form] as a
potential risk of treatment"(p. 102). This same report also states
that, "a reasonable current estimate is that the rate of ECT-related
mortality is 1 per 10,000 patients" (p. 59).

The truth, as I said earlier, is a much higher rate. So the APA
recommends that patients be misinformed about two of electroshock's
most serious potential risks. This is gross deception. Psychiatry's
professional organization gives no credence to the numerous human
autopsies, brainwave studies, animal studies, clinical observations,
and reports from electroshock subjects clearly demonstrating
electroshock's brain-damaging effects. Nor does the APA offer any
documentation substantiating its claim that electroshock's mortality
rate is "1 per 10,000 patients."

The second way that informed consent exists only in name is that even
minimal and inadequate guidelines for the administration of ECT are
routinely and systematically violated. For example, a 1995 report by
the Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy thoroughly documents pervasive
and systematic violations of that state's informed consent guidelines
on ECT. A 1987 study by Benedict and Saks of the regulation of
professional behavior regarding ECT in Massachusetts showed
that "approximately 90% of ECT patients received treatment
inappropriately, suggesting that the regulation of ECT administration
is ineffective."

Interestingly, the authors also reported that "the more familiar a
psychiatrist was with threatened or instituted lawsuits involving
ECT, and the more likely a lawsuit was thought to be, the greater was
his or her departure from the guidelines." From this statement alone,
I hope you will see why your investigation, control and oversight are
so crucial. Psychiatry is incapable of policing itself

A third rarely mentioned point stems from the fact that the legal
obligation under informed consent is to provide the patient with all
the information relevant to their decision-making--not just about the
treatment in question, but also about their condition. Psychiatric
patients are never told that their alleged disease is theoretical or
metaphorical. To say or even imply that what the patient has is
biologic and a disease when there is no such proof (as in all
psychiatric "diseases" for which electroshock is administered) is an
egregious deception that makes a mockery of informed consent. That
this has become the "standard of practice" in psychiatry does not
excuse it.

Fourth, and pragmatically crucial, is that many people become victims
of this so-called "treatment" at a time in life when they are
extremely vulnerable. At vulnerable times, people desperately need to
trust and rely on others for help. Reaching out, they need complete
safety and support. Often their only hope in such times is to trust
the wisdom and guidance of the professionals to whom they turn for
help. Informed consent is a fine principle, but in practice it is not
a protection.

Despite my conviction that true informed consent is not tenable given
the underpinnings of coercion and misinformation in psychiatry, I
have attached to my testimony a model of authentic informed consent.
This form is excerpted from my previously mentioned article on the
subject, and clearly states the information necessary for legitimate
consent. It also, by the way, describes minimum standards for
determining mental competence, as prerequisites for informed consent

COMPETENCY/CAPACITY

Psychiatry argues that labels of "mental illness" or "emotional
disability" make legitimate the designation of people as incompetent
to exercise their right to informed consent. Psychiatry says this
justifies the use of force. In fact, it does not! I urge each of you
assembly members to seriously consider this flawed and dangerous
assumption. Your own state supreme court, in Rivers v Katz regarding
forced drugging, makes it clear that the presence of mental illness
or emotional disability does not necessarily mean the patient is
lacking the capacity to choose treatment.

I quote: "It is clear that neither mental illness nor
institutionalization per se can stand as a justification for
overriding an individual's fundamental right to refuse anti-psychotic
medication on either police power or parens patriae [incapacity]
grounds." The state--according to Rivers v Katz-- bears the burden of
demonstrating by "clear and convincing evidence the patient's
incapacity to make a treatment decision." This fundamental right is
based on the "liberty interest" protected by the New York State
Constitution.

In Rivers v Katz, the Court also carefully observed that lack of
capacity may not be inferred even if the patient disagrees with the
psychiatrist's clinical judgment. This is very important because a
current review of 28 articles comparing patients' and staff members'
attitudes towards treatment (Roe et al, 2001) shows clearly that
there is a consistent disagreement over time and across studies
between staff and patients on treatment issues. The authors of this
review concluded that "the disagreement might have more to do with
the fundamental difference between being a patient and a staff member
rather than a patient's cognitive deficits or psychopathology."

Any legislation regarding capacity must honor Rivers v Katz and
preclude the use of a psychiatric diagnosis as justification of
force. The judges in Rivers v Katz wrote, "It is well accepted that
mental illness often strikes only limited areas of functioning
leaving other areas unimpaired, and consequently, many mentally ill
persons retain the capacity to function in a competent manner."

Society generally respects the right of citizens to refuse treatment
of physical illness, however life-threatening. This, as you all know,
is not the case for "mental illness." The cases of Paul Henry Thomas,
Adam Szysko, Pam S. and others here in New York have made this fact
abundantly clear. As I did in May, I continue to urge you to put a
moratorium on forced electroshock.

With all this in mind, I respectfully suggest that the following
clauses be added to your Bill number A09081 on electroshock and
informed consent:

a) Informed consent must be given for each individual treatment;

b) Consent may be given for no more than one treatment at a time;

c) Patient may refuse treatment at any time;

d) Patient may withdraw from treatment at any time, including between
the time he or she gave consent and administration of the procedure
previously consented to;

e) Competency must be assessed every single time consent is
requested; (suggest standard from proposed model)

f) Every patient has the absolute right to refuse electroshock. If
patient refuses to give consent (for whatever reason or for no reason
at all), there can be no administration of electroshock;

g) If patient is judged to lack capacity, there can be no
administration of electroshock; (The reason for this is the well-
documented fact that electroshock impairs cognitive capacity. If
someone lacks capacity, all emphasis should be on returning him or
her to capacity by helpful restorative means; therefore, no forced
electroshock.)

RE BILL A09083 OF TEMPORARY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Consistent with my opinion that without capacity there can be no
legally administered electroshock, I recommend striking section 3f of
Bill number 9083, on the procedure for surrogate consent. This should
be illegal. My one other recommendation for this committee is that it
should be more weighted to electroshock survivors, and should include
professionals who are critics of electroshock.

RE BILL A09082 ON REPORTING LAW

As I have just stated, court-ordered electroshock should be illegal.
Therefore, I recommend striking section A2 that counts the number of
patients for whom a court order was sought. There should be none.

ELECTROSHOCK IS UNNECESSARY

It has been said that a bad solution is one that acts destructively
on the larger pattern or system in which it is contained. A good
solution, then, is one that is good for the whole. What is good for
the brain is good for the body. What is good for the body is good for
the mind is good for the soul. Granted sometimes a part is sacrificed
for the whole. A malignant brain tumor or a gangrenous leg may be
removed to save a life. But we know that such remedies are desperate,
irreversible, and destructive; it is impossible to improve the body
by thes actions. Electroshock is like these surgeries in being a
desperate, irreversible and destructive act.

Electroshock does not save lives, and is absolutely not necessary.
There are many causes for depression. Some are physical and respond
well to legitimate medical treatments for conditions such as
diabetes, liver or kidney problems, or thyroid malfunction. Some are
related to psychological trauma or grief and loss, and respond well
to emotional healing techniques. Many are social and respond well to
closeness and affection and renewal of community. These are good
solutions, for the whole individual, and for the community, including
our precious elders whom psychiatrists are most wont to electroshock.

Let me conclude with what I think is an arresting image. In her
novel, Beloved, Toni Morrison describes the farm where her character
grew up as a slave: "It never looked as terrible as it was and it
made her wonder if Hell was a pretty place too. Fire and brimstone
all right, but hidden in lacy groves. Boys hanging from the most
beautiful sycamores in the world."

Boys hanging dead from the most beautiful sycamores in the world.
Unconscious, brain-damaged patients lying on electroshock tables in
the most impressive psychiatric institutions doing electroshock
research funded by the government of the United States through the
most prestigious National Institutes of Mental Health.

Boys hanging, dead. Victims of forced electroshock, brains damaged,
memory lost, potential healing suppressed, sometimes dead.

At the dawn of the 20th century in the United States, a black
Southerner died at the hands of a white mob more than once a week.
Society accepted the practice; some newspapers not only covered
lynchings, but even advertised them. At the dawn of the 21st century,
psychiatrists electroshock about 2,000 United States citizens every
week. Society accepts the practice; the media not only covers it, but
even promotes it.

Just as brave leaders and activists won civil rights legislation that
lead to a massive decline in the dehumanizing and degrading practice
of racism, activists are now challenging the brutal practice of
electroshock. Through the good efforts of this committee, New York's
legislature now has the opportunity to enact a landmark law
regulating and restricting the use of electroshock which hopefully
will lead one day to the abolition of this procedure, and thereby the
establishment of a more just and humane society. Thank you.

REFERENCES:

American Psychiatric Association (2001) The Practice of
Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training,
and Privileging, Second Edition.

Benedict, A. & Saks, M. (1987) The regulation of professional
behavior: Electroconvulsive therapy in Massachusetts. The Journal of
Psychiatry and Law, 15,2,247-275.

Roe, D., Lereya, J. & Fennig, S. (2001) Comparing patients' and staff
members' attitudes: Does patients' competence to disagree mean they
are not competent. The Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease, 189:307-
310.

Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy (1/17/95) Informed consent for
electroconvulsive therapy: A report on violations of patients' rights
by St. Mary's Hospital, Madison, WI. WCA, 16 N. Carroll St., Madison,
WI. 53703.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This email contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding
of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this
email is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.

A South Carolina woman has become the first survivor of
electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, shock treatment) to win a jury
verdict and a large money judgment in compensation for extensive
permanent amnesia and cognitive disability caused by the procedure.

Peggy S. Salters, 60, sued Palmetto Baptist Medical Center in
Columbia, as well as the three doctors responsible for her care. As
the result of an intensive course of outpatient ECT in 2000, she lost
all memories of the past 30 years of her life, including all memories
of her husband of three decades, now deceased, and the births of her
three children. Ms. Salters held a Masters of Science in nursing and
had a long career as a psychiatric nurse, but lost her knowledge of
nursing skills and was unable to return to work after ECT.

The jury awarded her $635,177 in compensation for her inability to
work. The malpractice verdict was against the referring doctor, Eric
Lewkowiez. The jury could not return a verdict against the other two
doctors because of one holdout vote for acquittal. The hospital
settled its liability for an undisclosed sum early in the trial.

Former patients have reported devastating, permanent amnesia and
cognitive impairment since ECT was first invented in 1938, but that
has not hindered the treatment's popularity with doctors. The first
lawsuit for ECT amnesia, Marilyn Rice v. John Nardini, was brought
exactly thirty years ago, and dozens of suits have followed. While
there have been a few settlements, including one for half a million
dollars, no former patient has won a case until now

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who served as Ms. Salters' expert
witness, was also the expert in Rice v. Nardini, and has appeared for
plaintiffs many times over the past three decades without success.
Psychologist Mary E. Shea presented extensive neuropsychological
testing proving to the jury's satisfaction that Ms. Salters suffers
dementia due to ECT brain damage.

Expert for the defense was Charles Kellner of New Jersey, formerly of
the Medical University of South Carolina. He testified that giving
Ms. Salters' 13 shocks in 19 days, instead of 26 days as is usual,
was not a violation of the American Psychiatric Association
guidelines. However, his assertions that Ms. Salters' severe
suicidality justified the controversial treatment could not be
substantiated by the medical records. 82-year-old Max Fink of New
York, widely regarded as the "grandfather of shock" and the author of
many books and articles on ECT, was scheduled to testify for the
defense, but in the end only watched the trial from the courtroom.
The defense did not call him as a witness due to incriminating
statements made under oath at his deposition

For the past three decades, defense attorneys have won case after
case by the same strategy: browbeating the jury with the plaintiff's
psychiatric history, playing upon the prevailing cultural notions
that mental patients are incapable of telling the truth and doctors
don't lie; even claiming that mental illness causes amnesia and brain
damage. Even neurological testing showing brain damage has been
brushed aside. Peggy Salters' case is the first in which a former ECT
patient has been believed. She says she sees it as a victory for all
ECT survivors.

Attorney for Ms. Salters, Mark Hardee, can be reached at (803) 799-
0905. Peggy Salters can be reached at (803)736-4444. Fink's
deposition is available from either of them
Additional information:
Case 03CP4004797
Richland County, South Carolina
Peggy S. Salters vs. Palmetto Health Alliance, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto
Baptist Medical Center; Robt. Schnackenberg, M.D., Individually, Eric
Lewkowiez, M.D., Individually, Columbia Psychiatric Associates, P.A.;
and Kenneth Huggins, M.D., Individually Filed October 03, 2003
Decided June 17, 2005

For the first time, a product liability suit against a shock machine
manufacturer has resulted in a successful settlement for the
plaintiff. The suit was brought by Imogene Rohovit of Iowa City,
Iowa, and her daughter alleging that Mrs. Rohovit, a single mother
and a former nurse had been brain damaged and rendered unable to work
by shocks inflicted by the MECTA Model D machine in 1989.

MECTA Corp and the Model D were also the subjects of the first
product liability lawsui against a shock machine company in 1987. The
suit claimed that MECTA's machine was designed to produce and did
routinley produce permanent memory and brain damge (not that the
machine was defective in any way). A judge initially ruled against
MECTA which then offered a settlement of $105,000. The offer was
rejected but an appellgate judge ruled MECTA did not have to go to
trial.

No shock machine has ever been pulled off the market, but even shock
doctors now warn others not to use the powerful Model D. It was sold
in the early 1980's and are still used. However, proclaimed
shock "expert" Harold Sackeim testified at trial that he does not use
the Model D on human beings but only on research animals. MECTA
President Robin Nichol has testified that MECTA has never performed a
single test on its machines.

MECTA insisted on a gag order, meaning that the exact amount of the
settlement cannot be disclosed by the parties. The settlement was in
1995. It is believed to be higher than the first settlement offer but
the plaintiffs expect to see little of the money due to the high
costs of bringing the case against Mrs. Rohovit's doctor to trial.
The trial lasted three weeks and the case was lost. Mrs. Rohovit's
attorney, Marc Humphries of Des Moines, Iowa cites recent attempts to
limit or eliminate all types of product liability lawsuits as a
factor in the settlement decision. But if these attempts fail, the
Rohovit case could encourage other suit

Thursday, 10 Jun 2004 8:37:38

MONTREAL - A Montreal woman who underwent intense electroshock
treatment in a programfunded by the CIA 50 years ago has been awarded
$100,000.

Gail Kastner was given massive electroshock therapy to treat
depression in 1953 at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal. She
was told on Wednesday of the compensation award.

She was left out of a federal compensation package in 1994 because
her treatment was deemed to have been less intense than that of other
victims of the experiments. Her treatment was also found to have had
fewer long-term effects. A Federal Court judge reversed that ruling,
and awarded her the same amount Ottawa gave to 77 others as
compensation for their treatment. There were 253 claims rejected.

Dr. Ewan Cameron, who was director of the Allan Memorial Institute,
conducted experiments using electroshock and drug-induced sleep. The
research was funded from 1950 to 1965 by the CIA and by the Canadian
government.

Written by CBC News Online staff

On October 15, 2005 a Virginia jurydelivered a $1.6 million verdict
in a tardive dyskinesia case, Sylvia Jones v.Jeffrey Alan Margolis.
The amount was especially large considering the small town setting of
Tappahannock in southeastern Virginia. Also, the defendant was a well-
known internist in the community.

In 1982 when she was twenty-one years old, her original internist
placed Sylvia Jones on Triavil, a combination of the neuroleptic
perphenazine (Trilafon) and the antidepressant amitriptyline
(Elavil). At that time she had situational stresses that were causing
anxiety. Although her most of her symptoms of anxiety cleared up
during the earlier years, her original internist maintained her on
the drug until 1997. Perphenazine is indicated for the treatment of
psychosis but at no time has Mrs. Jones displayed any symptoms of
psychosis.

In 1997 internist Alan Margolis, M.D. took over Mrs. Jones treatment
and increased the dose of Triavil. Although she no longer suffered
from any serious symptoms of anxiety, Dr. Margolis maintained her on
this drug until February 2003 when she developed a severe, painful
and crippling torticollis (spasm of her neck). Subsequent physicians
diagnosed her as suffering from neuroleptic-induced tardive
dyskinesia, a disorder that can afflict any voluntary muscle,
including the face, neck, torso, and extremities, as well as speech,
breathing and swallowing.

Since 1997 Mrs. Jones has been completely disabled by a variety of
motor abnormalities associated with tardive dyskinesia. In addition
to the spasms of her neck, her shoulders twist severely and she has
facial and abdominal spasms. Her vocal cords are impaired, producing
an abnormal tone of voice. She is weakened and cannot carry out tasks
requiring coordination or strength. She suffers from chronic pain.
Humiliation over her appearance has caused her to be socially
isolated.

At no time during her treatment did Dr. Margolis adequately justify
the use of a neuroleptic. He failed to monitor the patient, at one
point prescribing for her over a period of more than two years
without seeing her. He performed no examinations for TD, and he gave
no warnings or education concerning the risks and symptoms of TD.

In defense of Dr. Margolis, a Florida psychiatrist argued that the TD
wasn't caused by the twenty years of neuroleptic exposure but by the
very last dose that the patient supposedly took after her last visit
with Dr. Margolis. A well-known Washington, DC internist argued that
Dr. Margolis didn't have to give the patient any warnings or
education concerning TD since he was certain this information had
been given by her original doctor twenty years earlier, even though
that deceased doctor's records no longer existed.

Peter R. Breggin, M.D. conducted the initial evaluation of the case
and provided consultation in planning the case and then in the
courtroom during the trial. Originally scheduled as a rebuttal
witness to the defense experts, Dr.Breggin did not need to testify
because the defense was so weak that no rebuttal was required. Two
treating physicians testified on behalf of Mrs. Jones.

The plaintiff's attorney Paul Curley is located in Richmond, Virginia
(804 673 6600). He worked closely with Dr. Breggin and developed a
thorough knowledge of tardive dyskinesia.

You can listen to a documentary about Dr. Ewen Cameron via the
internet at this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nesa/n5ctrl/scotland/frontline/19oct.ram/ A
great documentary, worth seeing for sure!

This documentary is an eye opener and informative.


LAWSUITS RELATING TO ECT AND THE DAMAGE IT CAUSES TO PEOPLE (website
www.ect.org)

Shock therapy patients to sue
http://www.ect.org/news/sue.html

UK settlement
http://www.ect.org/news/leeds.html

Electric shock suit condemns hospital
http://www.ect.org/news/sanfransuit.html

Woman says electric shock treatment destroyed her life
http://www.ect.org/news/woman.html

Ontario lawsuit
http://www.ect.org/news/ontsuit.html

Soldier sues
http://www.ect.org/news/soldiersuit.html

Nurse wins lawsuit
http://www.npg.com/npg/case0329.htm


Don Weitz from Toronto can contacted by email: dweitz@pathcom.com


April 23, 2004
Food and Drug Administration Dockets Management Re:Docket #2003P-0555
5630 Fisher Lane, Room 1061 (HFA-305) Rockville, MD 20852 USA
fdadockets@oc.fda.gov

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am writing to support the hundreds of previous petitions, including
those shock survivors - members of the Committee for Truth in
Psychiatry in December 2003 urging you not to change the
classification of electroshock (ECT) machines from its current Class
III- or hi-risk/unsafe category to Class II/safe category.

I understand the FDA plans to move the shock machines into Class II.
This would be a very serious error in judgment besides being
unscientific. Since the FDA has never conducted its own inspections
or tests on these machines to determine their medical safety, it has
no scientific or rational basis to conclude that the shock machines
are safe. If the FDA conducts risk safety tests, I'm confident the
findings would clearly and convincingly indicate the serious harm
caused by these shock machines - brain damage, permanent memory loss,
learning disability, and even death. The fact that these machines are
still in use without the required independent and scientific
evaluation of their medical safety is inexcusable and irresponsible,
unethical, and extremely dangerous. Major and tragic effects of
electroshock: brain damage or electricially induced closed head
injury and permanent memory loss have been scientifically documented
for over fifty years since the 1940s. In addition, well over 400
deaths were caused by or related to electroshock have been reported
in the English language medical literature since 1942 (see Frank,
1990 below)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Psychiatric
Association should not continue to ignore or seriously minimize these
and many published scientific studies:

Peter R. Breggin. M.D. (1997) The Brain Disabling Treatments in
Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Role of the FDA, - Springer
Publishing Co, 119-156

John Friedberg, M.D. (1997) Shock Treatment, Brain Damage and Memory
Loss: A Neurological Perspective - American Journal of Psychiatry,
l34, 1010-1014

Leonard Roy Frank (1990) Electroshock: Death, Brain Damage, Memory
Loss and Brain Washing -Journal of Mind and Behaivour, 11, 489-512

Douglas G. Cameron (199) ECT: Sham Statistics, the myth of convulsive
therapy and the cause for consumer misinformation - Journal of Mind
and Behaviour - Winter/Spring l5, 179-198

Robert Morgan, Ph.d (1991) Electroshock: The Cause Against, Toronto -
IPI Publishing

It's also worth remembering the universally recognized warning - the
Hippocratic Oath - that all physicians are required to swear "FIRST
DO NO HARM" Everytime a physician adminsters electroshock by pushing
a button or pressing a lever on a shock machine releasing 175-200 +
volts of electricity to the brain, he is she is violating this Oath
again. I urge you to keep unsafe and harmful shock machines in your
Class III category until the memory destroying and brain disabling
psychiatric procedure of electroshock is banned. I would appreciate
your reply.
Sincerely, Don Weitz, psychiatric survivor, Co-founder - Coalition
Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA) Toronto cc: Committee for the
Truth in Psychiatry

NOTE: Don Weitz's writes - I sent this letter as an op/ed piece to
the Toronto Star Newspaper a few months ago - they rejected my
letter. Also, I had no reply from the FDA. Like the vast majority of
other mainstream media in Canada, the Toronto Star is a PR agent for
bio-psychiatry - it promotes the medical model, brain disabling drugs
and electroshock while minimizing and denying the brain damage and
permanent memory loss caused by electroshock.

Loren R. Mosher M. D.
2616 Angell Ave
San Diego, CA 92122

December 4 199

Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President
American Psychiatric Association
1400 94 Street N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Rod;

After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of
pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation
from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this
action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American
Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization's true
identity requires no change in the acronym.

Unfortunately, APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our
drug dependent society. Yet, it helps wage war on drugs. Dual
Diagnosis clients are a major problem for the field but not because
of the good drugs we prescribe. Bad ones are those that are obtained
mostly without a prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a
good capitalist organization, APA likes only those drugs from which
it can derive a profit - directly or indirectly.

This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view,
psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug
companies. The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical
company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal
advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants
etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company
promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and
autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation.

Anyone with the least bit of common sense attending the annual
meeting would observe how the drug company exhibits and industry
sponsored symposia draw crowds with their various enticements while
the serious scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric
training reflects their influence as well; i.e., the most important
part of a resident curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing
drugs, i.e., prescription writing.

These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be
complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer
do we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts
rather we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The
problem is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a
neurotransmitter whatever its configuration.

So, our guild organization provides a rationale, by its
neurobiological tunnel vision, for keeping our distance from the
molecule conglomerates we have come to define as patients. We condone
and promote the widespread overuse and misuse of toxic chemicals that
we know have serious long term effects: tardive dyskinesia, tardive
dementia and serious withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug
company patsy who treats molecules with their formulary? No, thank
you very much. It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I
look forward to being dissociated from such an organization. In no
way does it represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to
buy into the current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the
psychiatric leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine.
This is a matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical
house connection, money.

In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I
don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an
organization) such that the two organizations have adopted similar
public belief systems about the nature of madness. While professing
itself the champion of their clients the APA is supporting non-
clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via legally
enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring. NAMI, with tacit APA
approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy committment-
institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their
offspring.

For the most part we stand by and allow this fascistic agenda to move
forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, is allowed to
diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the NAMI organization
with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of medical ethics. Does
APA protest? Of course not, because he is speaking what APA agrees
with but can't explicitly espouse. He is allowed to be a foil; after
all he is no longer a member of APA. (Slick work APA!)
The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience between APA,
NAMI and the drug companies (who gleefully support both groups
because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I want no
part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.

Biologically based brain diseases are convenient for families and
practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against personal
responsibility. We are just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain
pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin
with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain
pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent
example). So, to be consistent with this "brain disease" view all the
major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our
neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them.

I believe they would eschew responsibility for these problematic
individuals. However, consistency would demand our giving
over "biologic brain diseases" to them. The fact that there is no
evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point,
irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and
money. This level of intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too
egregious for me to continue to support by my membership.

I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being
systemically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This
must give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry.
It must mean, at least in part, that they view psychiatry as being
very limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are
headed toward a situation in which, except for academics, most
psychiatric practitioners will have no real relationships, so vital
to the healing process, with the disturbed and disturbing persons
they treat. Their sole role will be that of prescription writers,
ciphers in the guise of being "helpers".

Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV
is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine
in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific
document. To its credit it says so, although its brief apologia is
rarely noted. DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best
seller - its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines
practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is
the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for
research projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do
they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They
don't, and can't, because there are no external validating criteria
for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific
anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are
we? APA as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as
well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax, as
practiced today

What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after
experiencing three decades of its history?

1.. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy
alliances without the members' permission.

2.. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what
it is - that is, be honest.

3.. Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align
itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups,
i. e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.

4.. Talk to the membership; I can't be alone in my views.

We seem to have forgotten a basic principle: the need to be
patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember
Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are
your patient's employee." In the end they will determine whether or
not psychiatry survives in the service marketplace.

Sincerely,

Loren R. Mosher M. D.


Dr. Mosher died in July 2004. He was a pioneer in establishing
programs of psychosocial community care in the field of psychiatry
(e.g., Soteria House); his many publications in that regard have been
very influential [E.g., Mosher, L., & Burti, L. (1989). Community
mental health: Principles and Practice. New York: Norton.]
TESTIMONY OF LEONARD ROY FRANK AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON
ELECTROCONVULSIVE "TREATMENT" BEFORE THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE OF
THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, MARTIN A. LUSTER (CHAIRMAN), MANHATTAN,
18 MAY 2001


My name is Leonard Roy Frank, from San Francisco, and I'm here
representing the Support Coalition International based in Eugene,
Oregon. SCI unites 100 sponsoring groups who oppose all forms of
psychiatric oppression and support humane approaches for assisting
people said to be "mentally ill." This year the United Nations
recognized Support Coalition International as "a Non-Governmental
Organization with Consultative Roster Status."

I've taken the epigraph for my presentation from a talk on the
Holocaust by Hadassah Lieberman, the wife of Sen. Joseph Lieberman,
which was rebroadcast on C-SPAN last month. She quoted the Bal Shem
Tov, founder of Hasidism: "In remembrance lies the secret of
redemption."

INTRODUCTION

Some personal background is relevant to the substance of my
testimony: I was born in 1932 in Brooklyn and was raised there. After
graduating from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania,
I served in the U.S. Army and then worked as a real estate salesman
for several years. In 1962, three years after moving to San
Francisco, I was diagnosed as a "paranoid schizophrenic" and
committed to a psychiatric institution where I was forcibly subjected
to 50 insulin-coma and 35 electroconvulsive procedures.

This was the most painful and humiliating experience of my life. My
memory for the three preceding years was gone. The wipe-out in my
mind was like a path cut across a heavily chalked blackboard with a
wet eraser. Afterwards, I didn't know that John F. Kennedy was
president although he had been elected three years earlier. There
were also big chunks of memory loss for events and periods spanning
my entire life; my high school and college education was effectively
destroyed. I felt that every part of me was less than what it had
been.

Following years of study reeducating myself, I became active in the
psychiatric survivors movement, becoming a staff member of Madness
Network News (1972) and co-founding the Network Against Psychiatric
Assault (1974) -- both based in San Francisco and dedicated to ending
abuses in the psychiatric system. In 1978 I edited and published The
History of Shock Treatment. Since 1995, three books of quotations I
edited have been published: Influencing Minds, Random House Webster's
Quotationary, and Random House Webster's Wit & Humor Quotationary.

Over the last thirty-five years I have researched the various shock
procedures, particularly electroshock or ECT, have spoken with
hundreds of ECT survivors, and have corresponded with many others.
> From all these sources and my own experience, I have concluded that
ECT is a brutal, dehumanizing, memory-destroying, intelligence-
lowering, brain-damaging, brainwashing, life-threatening technique.
ECT robs people of their memories, their personality and their
humanity. It reduces their capacity to lead full, meaningful lives;
it crushes their spirits. Put simply, electroshock is a method for
gutting the brain in order to control and punish people who fall or
step out of line, and intimidate others who are on the verge of doing
so.

BRAIN DAMAGE

Brain damage is the most important effect of ECT. Brain damage is, in
fact, the 800-pound gorilla in the living room whose existence
psychiatrists refuse to acknowledge, at least publicly. Nowhere is
this more clearly illustrated than in the American Psychiatric
Association's 2001 Task Force Report on The Practice of
Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training,
and Privileging, 2nd ed. (p. 102), which states that "in light of the
accumulated body of data dealing with structural effects of
ECT, 'brain damage' should not be included [in the ECT consent form]
as a potential risk of treatment."

But 50 years ago, when some proponents were careless with the truth
about ECT, Paul H. Hoch, co-author of a major psychiatric textbook
and New York State's Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, commented, "This
brings us for a moment to a discussion of the brain damage produced
by electroshock.... Is a certain amount of brain damage not necessary
in this type of treatment? Frontal lobotomy indicates that
improvement takes place by a definite damage of certain parts of the
brain." ("Discussion and Concluding Remarks," Journal of Personality,
1948, vol. 17, pp. 48-51)

More recently, neurologist Sidney Sament backed the brain-damage
charge in a letter to Clinical Psychiatry News (March 1983, p. 11):

"After a few sessions of ECT the symptoms are those of moderate
cerebral contusion, and further enthusiastic use of ECT may result in
the patient functioning at a subhuman level.

Electroconvulsive therapy in effect may be defined as a controlled
type of brain damage produced by electrical means....

In all cases the ECT 'response' is due to the concussion-type, or
more serious, effect of ECT. The patient 'forgets' his symptoms
because the brain damage destroys memory traces in the brain, and the
patient has to pay for this by a reduction in mental capacity of
varying degree."

Additional evidence of ECT-caused brain damage was published in an
earlier APA Task Force Report on Electroconvulsive Therapy (1978).
Forty-one percent of a large group of psychiatrists responding to a
questionnaire agreed with the statement that ECT produces "slight or
subtle brain damage." Only 28 percent disagreed (p. 4).

And finally there is the evidence from the largest published survey
of ECT-related deaths. In his Diseases of the Nervous System article
titled "Prevention of Fatalities in Electroshock Therapy" (July
1957), psychiatrist David J. Impastato, a leading ECT proponent,
reported 66 "cerebral" deaths among the 235 cases in which he was
able to determine the likely cause of death following ECT (p. 34).

MEMORY LOSS

If brain damage is electroshock's most important effect, memory loss
is its most obvious one. Such loss can be, and often is, devastating
as these statements from electroshock survivors indicate:

"My memory is terrible, absolutely terrible. I can't even remember
Sarah's first steps, and that's really hurtful... losing the memory
of the kids growing up was awful."

"I can be reading a magazine and I get halfway through or nearly to
the end and I can't remember what it's about, so I've got to read it
all over again."

"People would come up to me in the street that knew me and would tell
me how they knew me and I had no recollection of them at all... very
frightening." (Lucy Johnstone, "Adverse Psychological Effects of
ECT," Journal of Mental Health, 1999, vol. 8, p. 78)

Electroshock proponents are dismissive of the memory problems
associated with use of their procedure. The following is from the
sample ECT consent form in the APA's 2001 Task Force Report (pp. 321-
322): "The majority of patients state that the benefits of ECT
outweigh the problems with memory. Furthermore, most patients report
that their memory is actually improved after ECT. Nonetheless, a
minority of patients report problems in memory that remain for months
or even years." The text of the Report supplies flimsy documentation
for the claims in the first two sentences, but the third sentence, at
least, is closer to the truth than coverage of the same point in the
sample consent form of the first edition of the APA's Task Force
Report (1990, p. 158) which reads, "A small minority of patients,
perhaps 1 in 200, report severe problems in memory that remain for
months or even years." And even the more recent Report underestimates
the prevalence of memory loss among ECT survivors.

The vast majority of the hundreds of survivors I've communicated with
over the last three decades experience moderate-to-severe amnesia
going back two years and more from the time they underwent ECT. That
these findings do not appear in published ECT studies may be
accounted for by the bias of electroshock investigators, virtually
all of whom are ECT proponents, by denial (from ECT-induced brain
damage) on the part of participants and their fear of punitive
sanctions if they were to report the extent and persistence of their
memory loss, and finally by the difficulty in having anything
published in a mainstream professional journal that seriously
threatens the vested interests of an important segment of the
psychiatric community.

DEATH

The 2001 Task Force Report on ECT states, "a reasonable current
estimate is that the rate of ECT-related mortality is 1 per 10,000
patients" (p. 59). But some studies suggest that the ECT death rate
is about one in 200. This rate, however, may not reflect the true
situation because now elderly persons are being electroshocked in
growing numbers: statistics based on California's mandated ECT
reporting system indicate that upwards of 50 percent of all ECT
patients are 60 years of age and older.

Because of infirmity and disease, the elderly are more vulnerable to
ECT's harmful, and sometimes lethal, effects than younger people. A
1993 study involved 65 patients, 80 and older, who were hospitalized
for major depression. Here are the facts drawn from this study: The
patients were divided into 2 groups. One group of 37 patients was
treated with ECT; the other group, of 28 patients, with
antidepressants. After 1 year, 1 patient among the 28, or 4 percent,
in the antidepressant group was dead; while in the ECT group 10
patients among the 37, or 27 percent, were dead. (David Kroessler and
Barry Fogel, "Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major Depression in the
Oldest Old," American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Winter 1993,
p. 30)

BRAINWASHING

The term "brainwashing" came into the language during the early
1950s. It originally identified the technique of intensive
indoctrination, combining psychological and physical pressure,
developed by the Chinese for use on political dissidents following
the Communist takeover on the mainland and on American prisoners of
war during the Korean War. While electroshock is not used overtly
against political dissidents, it is used throughout most of the world
against cultural dissidents, nonconformists, social misfits and the
unhappy (the troubling and the troubled), whom psychiatrists diagnose
as "mentally ill" in order to justify ECT as a medical intervention.

Indeed, electroshock is a classic example of brainwashing in the most
meaningful sense of the term. Brainwashing means washing the brain of
its contents. Electroshock destroys memories and ideas by destroying
the brain cells which store them. As psychiatrists J. C. Kennedy and
David Anchel, both ECT proponents, described the effects of this
tabula rasa "treatment" in 1948, "Their minds seem like clean slates
upon which we can write" ("Regressive Electric-shock in
Schizophrenics Refractory to Other Shock Therapies," Psychiatric
Quarterly, vol. 22, pp. 317-320). Soon after published accounts of
the erasure of 18 minutes from secret White House audiotapes during
the Watergate investigation, another electroshock psychiatrist
reported, "Recent memory loss [from ECT] could be compared to erasing
a tape recording." (Robert E. Arnot, "Observations on the Effects of
Electric Convulsive Treatment in Man--Psychological," Diseases of the
Nervous System-, September 1975, pp. 449-502)

For these reasons, I have proposed that the procedure now called
electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) be renamed electroconvulsive
brainwashing (ECB). And ECB may be putting it too mildly. We might
ask ourselves, Why is it that 10 volts of electricity applied to a
political prisoner's private parts is seen as torture while 10 or 15
times that amount applied to the brain is called "treatment"? Perhaps
the acronym "ECT" should be retained and have the "T" stand for
torture - electroconvulsive torture.

SEVEN REASONS
If electroshock is an atrocity, as I maintain, how can its use on
more than 10 million Americans since being introduced more than 60
years ago be explained? Here are seven reasons:

1. ECT is a money-maker. Psychiatrists specializing in ECT earn
$300,000-500,000 a year compared with other psychiatrists whose mean
annual income is $150,000. An in-hospital ECT series costs anywhere
from $50,000-75,000. One-hundred thousand Americans are believed to
undergo ECT annually. Based on this figure, I estimate that
electroshock is a $5 billion-a-year industry.

2. Biological model. ECT reinforces the psychiatric belief system,
the linchpin of which is the biological model of mental illness. This
model centers on the brain and reduces most serious personal problems
down to genetic, physical, hormonal, and/or biochemical defects which
call for biological treatment of one kind or another. The biological
approach covers a spectrum of physical treatments, at one end of
which are psychiatric drugs, at the other end is psychosurgery (which
is still being used, although infrequently), with electroshock
falling somewhere between the two. The brain as psychiatry's focus of
attention and treatment is not a new idea. What psychiatrist Carl G.
Jung wrote in 1916 applies today: "The dogma that 'mental diseases
are diseases of the brain' is a hangover from the materialism of the
1870s. It has become a prejudice which hinders all progress, with
nothing to justify it." ("General Aspects of Dream Psychology," The
Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, 1960) Eighty-five years later,
there's still nothing in the way of scientific evidence to support
the brain-disease notion. The tragic irony is that the psychiatric
profession makes unsubstantiated claims that mental illness is caused
by a brain disease while hotly denying that electroshock causes brain
damage, the evidence for which is overwhelming

3. The myth of informed consent. While outright force is seldom used,
genuine informed consent is never obtained because ECT candidates can
be coerced and because electroshock specialists refuse to accurately
inform ECT candidates and their families of the procedure's nature
and effects. ECT specialists lie not only to the parties vitally
concerned, they lie to themselves and to each other. Eventually they
come to believe their own lies, and when they do, they become even
more persuasive to the naïve and uninformed. As Ralph Waldo Emerson
wrote in 1852, "A man cannot dupe others long who has not duped
himself first." Here is an instance of evil so deeply ingrained that
it's no longer recognized as such. Instead we see such outrages as
ECT specialist Robert E. Peck titling his 1974 book, The Miracle of
Shock Treatment and Max Fink, who for many years edited the leading
professional journal in the field, now called The Journal of ECT,
telling a Washington Post reporter in 1996, "ECT is one of God's
gifts to mankind." (Sandra G. Boodman, "Shock Therapy: It's Back," 24
September, Health [section], p.16)

4. Backup for treatment-resistant psychiatric-drug users. Many, if
not most, of those being electroshocked today are suffering from the
ill effects of a trial run or long-term use of antidepressant, anti-
anxiety, neuroleptic, and/or stimulant drugs, or combinations
thereof. When such effects become obvious, the patient, the patient's
family, or the treating psychiatrist may refuse to continue the drug-
treatment program. This helps explain why ECT is so necessary in
modern psychiatric practice: it is the treatment of next resort. It
is psychiatry's way of burying their mistakes without, except rarely,
killing the patient. Growing use and failure of psychiatric-drug
treatment has forced psychiatry to rely more and more on ECT as a way
of dealing with difficult, complaining patients, who often are
hurting more from the drugs than from their original problems. And
when the ECT fails to "work," there's always -- following an initial
series -- more ECT (prophylactic ECT administered periodically to
outpatients), or more drug treatment, or a combination of the two.
That drugs and ECT are for practical purposes the only methods
psychiatry offers to, or imposes on, those who seek treatment or for
whom treatment is sought is further evidence of the profession's
clinical and moral bankruptcy

5. Lack of accountability. Psychiatry has become a Teflon profession:
criticism, what little there is of it, doesn't stick. Psychiatrists
routinely carry out brutal acts of inhumanity and no one calls them
on it -- not the courts, not the government, not the people.
Psychiatry has become an out-of-control profession, a rogue
profession, a paradigm of authority without responsibility, which is
a good working definition of tyranny.

6. Government support. Not only does the federal government stand by
passively as psychiatrists continue to electroshock American citizens
in direct violation of some of their most fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, freedom from assault, and freedom
from "cruel and unusual punishment," the government also actively
supports electroshock through the licensing and funding of hospitals
where the procedure is used, by covering ECT costs in its insurance
programs (including Medicare), and by financing ECT research
(including some of the most damaging ECT techniques ever devised). A
recently published study provides an example of such research. The
ECT experiment, which was conducted at Wake Forest University School
of Medicine/North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Winston-Salem, between
1995 and 1998, reports the use of electric current at up to 12 times
the individual's convulsive threshold on as many as 36 depressed
patients.

The destructive element in ECT is the current that causes the
convulsion: the more electrical energy, the greater the brain damage.
This reckless disregard for the safety of ECT subjects was supported
by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. (W. Vaughn
McCall, David M. Begoussin, Richard D. Weiner, and Harold A.
Sackeim, "Titrated Moderately Suprathreshold vs. Fixed High-Dose
Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy: Acute Antidepressant and
Cognitive Effects," Archives of General Psychiatry, May 2000, pp. 438-
444)

7. Electroshock could never have become a major psychiatric procedure
without the active collusion and silent acquiescence of tens of
thousands of psychiatrists. Many of them know better; all of them
should know better. The active and passive cooperation of the media
has also played an essential role in expanding the use of
electroshock. Amidst a barrage of propaganda from the psychiatric
profession, the media passes on the claims of ECT proponents almost
without challenge. The occasional critical articles are one-shot
affairs, with no follow-up, which the public quickly forgets. With so
much controversy surrounding this procedure, one would think that
some investigative reporters would key on to the story. But it's
happened only rarely up to now. And the silence continues to drown
out the voices of those who need to be heard. I'm reminded of Martin
Luther King's 1963 "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," in which he
wrote "We shall have to repent in this generation not merely for the
vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling
tilence of the good people."

CONCLUSION

As noted earlier, I'm here representing the Support Coalition
International. But more significantly, I'm also here representing the
true victims of electroshock: those who have been silenced, those
whose lives have been ruined, and those who have been killed. All of
them bear witness through the words I have spoken here today.

I'll close with a short paragraph, in way of summary, and a poem I
wrote in 1989.

If the body is the temple of the spirit, the brain may be seen as the
inner sanctum of the body, the holiest of holy places. To invade,
violate, and injure the brain, as electroshock unfailingly does, is a
crime against the spirit and a desecration of the soul.

AFTERMATH

With "therapeutic" fury
search-and-destroy doctors
using instruments of infamy
conduct electrical lobotomies
in little Auschwitzes called mental hospitals

Electroshock specialists brainwash
their apologists whitewash
as silenced screams echo
from pain-treatment rooms
down corridors of shame.

Selves diminished
we return
to a world of narrowed dreams
piecing together memory fragments
for the long journey ahead.

>From the roadside
dead-faced onlookers
awash in deliberate ignorance
sanction the unspeakable --
Silence is complicity is betrayal.

Leonard Roy Frank, who lives in San Francisco, is an
electroshock/insulincoma survivor, a long-time activist for human
rights, and an editor/writer. He co-founded the Network Against
Psychiatric Assault (NAPA) in 1974 and edited The History of Shock
Treatment (self-published) in 1978. Since 1995, he has edited three
collections of quotations: Influencing Minds: A Reader in Quotations
(Feral House), Random House Webster's Quotationary, and Random House
Webster's Wit & Humor Quotations. Leonard can be reached at
lfrank@igc.org.

TESTIMONY TO THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY HEARING ON ELECTROSHOCK, July
18, 2001

John Breeding, Ph.D.
2503 Douglas St.
Austin, Texas 78741
(512) 326-8326
www.wildestcolts.com

My name is John Breeding. I am a psychologist from Austin, Texas. I
testified in New York at the hearing in May on forced electroshock,
and I am grateful to Assemblyman Luster for his enlightened
leadership and determination to investigate electroshock practice in
New York State. I am also grateful to Assemblyman Ortiz for his
resolve and leadership in proposing electroshock legislation, and to
all the other committee members for their concern about this issue.

Electroshock is practiced throughout the United States. Texas, where
I come from, has perhaps the strongest controls of any state,
including a reporting law, an emphatic demand for informed consent
for ECT, and a ban on the treatment for children under 16. New York
is unique, however, in that key research institutes, such as those at
Columbia University and the New York Psychiatric Institute are
located here, as are the electroshock industry leaders who work at
those institutions. So the Assembly's acknowledgment of the need for
investigation and consideration of legislative oversight and control
of psychiatric electroshock practice is especially important.

As a psychologist, I have worked with a number of victims of
electroshock. I have been on the advisory board of the World
Association of Electroshock Survivors, an organization consisting of
individuals who have undergone electroshock and who are now working
to ban this procedure. I implore you to understand the significance
of this group and others like it, such as the Committee for Truth in
Psychiatry, based in New York City and the larger Support Coalition
International.

Electroshock Survivors from these groups are actively organizing to
outlaw a "treatment" which their doctors declared was necessary and
would help them, even in some cases--to the point of forcing it on
them against their will! As I said in my earlier testimony, if
thousands of the patients receiving a standard medical procedure for
a physical illness had organized themselves to ban that procedure,
there would surely be a serious reevaluation of the procedure and
probably a complete moratorium until a proper investigation was
completed.

ELECTROSHOCK AND INFORMED CONSENT

Today, per Assemblyman Luster's request, I will focus on informed
consent.

A recent article of mine, called, "Electroshock and Informed
Consent," is attached to this testimony. The article cites research
that substantiates all of its points, including the following:

Electroshock causes death. Psychiatry often says 1 in 10,000. The
truth is a much higher death rate; some studies show 1 in 200.

Electroshock always causes brain damage. The question is only how
much.

Electroshock always causes memory loss. The question is only how much.

Electroshock does not prevent suicide.

Electroshock has no beneficial effects. (The supposed short-term
benefits are in reality the immediate sign of brain damage.)

Electroshock often results in cardiovascular complications or
epilepsy.

Electroshock poses extra risks for the elderly, who bear the brunt of
the treatments, including higher mortality rates.

Genuine informed consent must include the seven facts cited above,
and a good deal more. Regrettably, even the appearance of informed
consent does not guarantee its reality. Let me briefly describe four
of the many ways in which psychiatry systematically violates informed
consent.

First, there is denial and minimization of harmful effects. The
American Psychiatric Association 2001 Task Force Report on The
Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy states that "in light of the
accumulated body of data dealing with structural effects of ECT,
brain damage should not be included [in the ECT consent form] as a
potential risk of treatment"(p. 102). This same report also states
that, "a reasonable current estimate is that the rate of ECT-related
mortality is 1 per 10,000 patients" (p. 59).

The truth, as I said earlier, is a much higher rate. So the APA
recommends that patients be misinformed about two of electroshock's
most serious potential risks. This is gross deception. Psychiatry's
professional organization gives no credence to the numerous human
autopsies, brainwave studies, animal studies, clinical observations,
and reports from electroshock subjects clearly demonstrating
electroshock's brain-damaging effects. Nor does the APA offer any
documentation substantiating its claim that electroshock's mortality
rate is "1 per 10,000 patients."

The second way that informed consent exists only in name is that even
minimal and inadequate guidelines for the administration of ECT are
routinely and systematically violated. For example, a 1995 report by
the Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy thoroughly documents pervasive
and systematic violations of that state's informed consent guidelines
on ECT. A 1987 study by Benedict and Saks of the regulation of
professional behavior regarding ECT in Massachusetts showed
that "approximately 90% of ECT patients received treatment
inappropriately, suggesting that the regulation of ECT administration
is ineffective."

Interestingly, the authors also reported that "the more familiar a
psychiatrist was with threatened or instituted lawsuits involving
ECT, and the more likely a lawsuit was thought to be, the greater was
his or her departure from the guidelines." From this statement alone,
I hope you will see why your investigation, control and oversight are
so crucial. Psychiatry is incapable of policing itself

A third rarely mentioned point stems from the fact that the legal
obligation under informed consent is to provide the patient with all
the information relevant to their decision-making--not just about the
treatment in question, but also about their condition. Psychiatric
patients are never told that their alleged disease is theoretical or
metaphorical. To say or even imply that what the patient has is
biologic and a disease when there is no such proof (as in all
psychiatric "diseases" for which electroshock is administered) is an
egregious deception that makes a mockery of informed consent. That
this has become the "standard of practice" in psychiatry does not
excuse it.

Fourth, and pragmatically crucial, is that many people become victims
of this so-called "treatment" at a time in life when they are
extremely vulnerable. At vulnerable times, people desperately need to
trust and rely on others for help. Reaching out, they need complete
safety and support. Often their only hope in such times is to trust
the wisdom and guidance of the professionals to whom they turn for
help. Informed consent is a fine principle, but in practice it is not
a protection.

Despite my conviction that true informed consent is not tenable given
the underpinnings of coercion and misinformation in psychiatry, I
have attached to my testimony a model of authentic informed consent.
This form is excerpted from my previously mentioned article on the
subject, and clearly states the information necessary for legitimate
consent. It also, by the way, describes minimum standards for
determining mental competence, as prerequisites for informed consent

COMPETENCY/CAPACITY

Psychiatry argues that labels of "mental illness" or "emotional
disability" make legitimate the designation of people as incompetent
to exercise their right to informed consent. Psychiatry says this
justifies the use of force. In fact, it does not! I urge each of you
assembly members to seriously consider this flawed and dangerous
assumption. Your own state supreme court, in Rivers v Katz regarding
forced drugging, makes it clear that the presence of mental illness
or emotional disability does not necessarily mean the patient is
lacking the capacity to choose treatment.

I quote: "It is clear that neither mental illness nor
institutionalization per se can stand as a justification for
overriding an individual's fundamental right to refuse anti-psychotic
medication on either police power or parens patriae [incapacity]
grounds." The state--according to Rivers v Katz-- bears the burden of
demonstrating by "clear and convincing evidence the patient's
incapacity to make a treatment decision." This fundamental right is
based on the "liberty interest" protected by the New York State
Constitution.

In Rivers v Katz, the Court also carefully observed that lack of
capacity may not be inferred even if the patient disagrees with the
psychiatrist's clinical judgment. This is very important because a
current review of 28 articles comparing patients' and staff members'
attitudes towards treatment (Roe et al, 2001) shows clearly that
there is a consistent disagreement over time and across studies
between staff and patients on treatment issues. The authors of this
review concluded that "the disagreement might have more to do with
the fundamental difference between being a patient and a staff member
rather than a patient's cognitive deficits or psychopathology."

Any legislation regarding capacity must honor Rivers v Katz and
preclude the use of a psychiatric diagnosis as justification of
force. The judges in Rivers v Katz wrote, "It is well accepted that
mental illness often strikes only limited areas of functioning
leaving other areas unimpaired, and consequently, many mentally ill
persons retain the capacity to function in a competent manner."

Society generally respects the right of citizens to refuse treatment
of physical illness, however life-threatening. This, as you all know,
is not the case for "mental illness." The cases of Paul Henry Thomas,
Adam Szysko, Pam S. and others here in New York have made this fact
abundantly clear. As I did in May, I continue to urge you to put a
moratorium on forced electroshock.

With all this in mind, I respectfully suggest that the following
clauses be added to your Bill number A09081 on electroshock and
informed consent:

a) Informed consent must be given for each individual treatment;

b) Consent may be given for no more than one treatment at a time;

c) Patient may refuse treatment at any time;

d) Patient may withdraw from treatment at any time, including between
the time he or she gave consent and administration of the procedure
previously consented to;

e) Competency must be assessed every single time consent is
requested; (suggest standard from proposed model)

f) Every patient has the absolute right to refuse electroshock. If
patient refuses to give consent (for whatever reason or for no reason
at all), there can be no administration of electroshock;

g) If patient is judged to lack capacity, there can be no
administration of electroshock; (The reason for this is the well-
documented fact that electroshock impairs cognitive capacity. If
someone lacks capacity, all emphasis should be on returning him or
her to capacity by helpful restorative means; therefore, no forced
electroshock.)

RE BILL A09083 OF TEMPORARY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Consistent with my opinion that without capacity there can be no
legally administered electroshock, I recommend striking section 3f of
Bill number 9083, on the procedure for surrogate consent. This should
be illegal. My one other recommendation for this committee is that it
should be more weighted to electroshock survivors, and should include
professionals who are critics of electroshock.

RE BILL A09082 ON REPORTING LAW

As I have just stated, court-ordered electroshock should be illegal.
Therefore, I recommend striking section A2 that counts the number of
patients for whom a court order was sought. There should be none.

ELECTROSHOCK IS UNNECESSARY

It has been said that a bad solution is one that acts destructively
on the larger pattern or system in which it is contained. A good
solution, then, is one that is good for the whole. What is good for
the brain is good for the body. What is good for the body is good for
the mind is good for the soul. Granted sometimes a part is sacrificed
for the whole. A malignant brain tumor or a gangrenous leg may be
removed to save a life. But we know that such remedies are desperate,
irreversible, and destructive; it is impossible to improve the body
by thes actions. Electroshock is like these surgeries in being a
desperate, irreversible and destructive act.

Electroshock does not save lives, and is absolutely not necessary.
There are many causes for depression. Some are physical and respond
well to legitimate medical treatments for conditions such as
diabetes, liver or kidney problems, or thyroid malfunction. Some are
related to psychological trauma or grief and loss, and respond well
to emotional healing techniques. Many are social and respond well to
closeness and affection and renewal of community. These are good
solutions, for the whole individual, and for the community, including
our precious elders whom psychiatrists are most wont to electroshock.

Let me conclude with what I think is an arresting image. In her
novel, Beloved, Toni Morrison describes the farm where her character
grew up as a slave: "It never looked as terrible as it was and it
made her wonder if Hell was a pretty place too. Fire and brimstone
all right, but hidden in lacy groves. Boys hanging from the most
beautiful sycamores in the world."

Boys hanging dead from the most beautiful sycamores in the world.
Unconscious, brain-damaged patients lying on electroshock tables in
the most impressive psychiatric institutions doing electroshock
research funded by the government of the United States through the
most prestigious National Institutes of Mental Health.

Boys hanging, dead. Victims of forced electroshock, brains damaged,
memory lost, potential healing suppressed, sometimes dead.

At the dawn of the 20th century in the United States, a black
Southerner died at the hands of a white mob more than once a week.
Society accepted the practice; some newspapers not only covered
lynchings, but even advertised them. At the dawn of the 21st century,
psychiatrists electroshock about 2,000 United States citizens every
week. Society accepts the practice; the media not only covers it, but
even promotes it.

Just as brave leaders and activists won civil rights legislation that
lead to a massive decline in the dehumanizing and degrading practice
of racism, activists are now challenging the brutal practice of
electroshock. Through the good efforts of this committee, New York's
legislature now has the opportunity to enact a landmark law
regulating and restricting the use of electroshock which hopefully
will lead one day to the abolition of this procedure, and thereby the
establishment of a more just and humane society. Thank you.

REFERENCES:

American Psychiatric Association (2001) The Practice of
Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training,
and Privileging, Second Edition.

Benedict, A. & Saks, M. (1987) The regulation of professional
behavior: Electroconvulsive therapy in Massachusetts. The Journal of
Psychiatry and Law, 15,2,247-275.

Roe, D., Lereya, J. & Fennig, S. (2001) Comparing patients' and staff
members' attitudes: Does patients' competence to disagree mean they
are not competent. The Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease, 189:307-
310.

Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy (1/17/95) Informed consent for
electroconvulsive therapy: A report on violations of patients' rights
by St. Mary's Hospital, Madison, WI. WCA, 16 N. Carroll St., Madison,
WI. 53703.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding
of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
page is distributed without profit to those who with an
interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.