Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Rob Evans, P C Naik, and S Alikhan Electroconvulsive therapy: Conflicting advice confuses prescribers BMJ 2003; 327: 621 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Electroconvulsive therapy: Confusion does not stem from the evidence

Ron Roberts   (12 September 2003)

Electroconvulsive therapy: Confusion does not stem from the evidence 12 September 2003
Ron Roberts, Senior Lectrurer Psychology Dept, Kingston University KT1 2EE Send response to journal: Re: Electroconvulsive therapy: Confusion does not stem from the evidence	Rob Evans writes "In the current medicolegal climate the implications of operating outside the NICE guidelines are likely to trump other considerations such as patient choice". This is a bit disngenuous to say the least. That the question of cognitive impairment resulting from use of ECT has yet to properly evaluated is a shocking indictment of the psychiatric establishment's arrogance, scientific ineptitude and failure to listen. As a psychology undergraduate student 27 years ago patients at the local psychiatruic hospital were being ushered out of view by psychiatrists when complaints of memory problems were aired - YES 27 years ago. ECT is the preferred choice of psychiatrists not patients. The reasons for the conflict between the NICE guidelines and those of the RCP are not difficult to discern. The promulgation of a variety of physical treatments offered in psychiatry for psychological problems have a dubious scientific basis and owe as much to the desire for professional prestige, power and control as they do to efficacy. Confusion amongst prescribers? Time to ditch the biological ideology and look at the evidence - perhaps that will end it. Competing interests:   None declared