Marylandian - Despite Global Calls for a Ban, US Child Psychiatry Pushes Electroshock for Kids

Trending...

Maryland: PUBLIC NOTICE: Unscheduled Mosquito Control Activity in Prince
Ignazio Arces Wins Silver Stevie Award in New York as Culture Transformation Leader of the Year
A New Era of Fashion Collaboration Begins: Introducing the Global Fashion Membership Platform

CCHR says electroshocking minors—including 5-year-olds—causes brain damage and violates global human rights standards, urging U.S. states to prohibit the practice under child abuse laws.

LOS ANGELES - Marylandian -- Child and adolescent psychiatrists have issued a policy statement urging broader access to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for children and adolescents despite growing international condemnation of the practice on minors. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Human Rights Office have called for an outright ban on ECT for children, explicitly stating: "ECT is not recommended for children, and this should be prohibited through legislation."[1] The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), a mental health industry watchdog, condemned the statement as "medically reckless, legally dangerous, and morally indefensible." CCHR is demanding federal and state lawmakers move urgently to outlaw the electroshocking of children, classifying it as a form of child abuse.

ECT, also known as shock treatment, sends up to 460 volts of electricity through the brain to induce a grand mal seizure. This disruption of the brain's electrical activity alters its structure and function—an especially serious risk to the developing brains of children. Yet child psychiatrists not only call for expanded use of ECT on minors but also oppose "any efforts—legal, legislative, and otherwise—to block access to ECT."

Through US Freedom of Information Act requests CCHR uncovered that children as young as five have been electroshocked. The full scope remains hidden due to the lack of national transparency requirements on ECT usage.

Internationally, some countries have already banned ECT entirely (e.g., Slovenia and Luxembourg). In the U.S., California prohibits it under age 12, and Texas under 16. In Western Australia, ECT on minors under 14 is illegal, with criminal penalties—including jail time—for administering it to children. CCHR was instrumental in helping secure that law, along with state bans in the US.

More on Marylandian

Disturbingly, a child and adolescent psychiatry group has also called for more research involving ECT on youth, potentially exposing children under age 13 to an unproven and highly invasive procedure. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricts its use to individuals aged 13 and older for limited diagnoses.

The psychiatry group's statement fails to disclose that brain damage is a known risk of ECT. Yet, the American Psychiatric Association concedes that "ECT can result in persistent or permanent memory loss." The joint WHO/UN report adds: "People being offered ECT should also be made aware of all its risks and potential short- and long-term harmful effects, such as memory loss and brain damage."[2]

In June 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled that an ECT device manufacturer must warn doctors of the risks of brain damage and permanent memory loss.[3] In 2018, a US District Court judge found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that an ECT device could cause brain injury.[4]

Neuropathologist Dr. Bennet Omalu—known for discovering chronic traumatic encephalopathy (brain diseases or damage) in football players—publicly condemned ECT, stating: "The amounts of electrical energy introduced to the human brain by ECT machines can be nothing but harmful and dangerous… The patient who receives ECT therapy will manifest permanent and cumulative brain injury, which can be progressive over time and result in chronic encephalopathies and brain degeneration."[5]

Despite pediatric psychiatry's claim that ECT is "safe and effective," the FDA has never required manufacturers to prove ECT's safety or efficacy through clinical trials.[6] Internationally renowned researcher Prof. John Read reports that only 11 placebo-controlled trials of ECT have ever been conducted—all prior to 1985, and all deeply flawed. "None found any benefit beyond the end of treatment," he stated. Further, children's developing brains are "particularly susceptible to the memory loss caused by ECT."[7]

Legal precedent exists for holding professionals and psychiatric facilities accountable for misleading parents about the safety and nature of treatment. In June 2024, an Arizona jury awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to the family of a teen girl who suffered coercion and abuse at a troubled teen treatment facility. They successfully argued that they were misled by marketing materials portraying the program as therapeutic and safe, when it was abusive.[8]

More on Marylandian

CCHR says that this same legal framework must apply to misleading promotion of ECT's benefits to desperate parents. Failing to disclose the full risks of ECT should be subject to the same scrutiny and liability as cases in the troubled teen treatment industry.

CCHR asserts that electroshock should not only be banned nationwide, but if administered to children, should be held accountable under child abuse laws.

Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, stated, "The electroshocking of children is without moral or scientific justification and should be indefensible under the law. As international bodies condemn it, and legal rulings establish precedent for holding programs accountable for misleading parents, the U.S. must act. We urge lawmakers at all levels to ban ECT, especially on minors, and define it as a form of child abuse."

CCHR, which was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and professor of psychiatry, Dr. Thomas Szasz, recommends parents watch its documentary, Therapy or Torture: The Truth About Electroshock, with expert opinions about how ECT damages minds.

Sources:

[1] World Health Organization, OHCHR, "Guidance on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation," pp. 58 & 59

[2] www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychiatry-through-the-looking-glass/202311/is-it-time-to-ban-electroconvulsive-therapy-for

[3] www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2024/june/wisner-baum-prevails-in-landmark-win-for-patient/

[4] "ECT Litigation Update: Are Patients Being Warned of Brain Damage Risk?" MAD, 13 June 2019

[5] www.wisnerbaum.com/defective-medical-device-injuries/ect/

[6] www.wisnerbaum.com/defective-medical-device-injuries/ect/; https://www.cnet.com/health/fda-approved-vs-fda-cleared-whats-the-difference/

[7] www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychiatry-through-the-looking-glass/202311/is-it-time-to-ban-electroconvulsive-therapy-for

[8] www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/column-troubled-teen-industry-scrutiny-builds-litigation-follows-2024-07-12/; www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2024/07/19/spring-ridge-academy-students-arizona-describe-harsh-treatment-after-lawsuit/74461275007/