banect.info

This is a static website, with no interactive content, so no push notifications, cookies, etc. & so refresh the browser manually for any updated content if returning. I often set links to open in a new tab or window and I try to indicate that action in mouseover hover text. This page was last updated July 26, 2024.

This site is not affiliated with any similar named top level domains & my objective is to provide an augment to the cause of the global banishment of ECT (electroconvulsive therapy treatments) by presenting an argument that the tactics to coerce patients into attempting the treatment become more transparent when applying the idea of an ongoing enticement (carrot on a stick) paradigm that is utilized overall to persuade a (vulnerable & often disadvantaged) person to try; and then continue to stake their physical well-being on such a frivolous pursuit. There are people that currently use it & swear by it, but they can be the providing "physicians'" lackeys & are themselves seeking reinforcement of their self-harm by proxy "benefit".

I personally wasn't going to involve myself to this extent with this cause due to emotional toll (oh, sadistic people catch on & are always ready to scapegoat an advocate for human rights!) ... but it dawned on me that the providers were using an ongoing enticement tactic when I read the account of someone who experienced the sessions. He wrote that there were a series of them that he committed to, and completed in spite of the fact that there was another event in his life during the interim between sessions that was a hindrance. (Note: I re-read over those parts in Matt's book & he missed three appts. He was still determined though, is the point.) It became clear that it was by his principles that he was resolved to follow through with finishing his appointments.

So then it becomes more obvious that there are the tactics of appealing to a patient's own moral ethics (don't waste peoples' time unless you're serious, type thing), & exploiting their desperation. The patient is validated by the attention and acceptance. They'd feel an inclusion into a prestigious & esoteric cult that is even gov't & culturally sanctioned. With everything said & done the patient doesn't have much alternative but to see it as a positive experience so there's placebo, too!

I further contend here that if there is physical benefit it is possibly only an adrenaline rush produced in the body that causes an endorphin release ... I haven't made a point to look into that idea further ... but a person could feel tough by enduring the treatment even with the (newer) anesthetics used. I don't want to know much about the drugs used either but I once seen somebody say there's a new one used that helps "reboot the brain", was the way it was phrased. ⇽ I was involved in an argument on social media where someone was insisting that it was the anesthetic, propofol, that helped "reset" the brain but the person may have associated the article I found (prior link given) with ECT. The words "reset" & "reboot" are both liberally used in pseudo-scientific articles that I've found though, such as here & here.

Note: I had the idea that the word exhilarating may be applicable for the benefit and so I searched for electroconvulsive therapy "exhilarating" (the quotes to show results that include the word). One of the results contained the word but in comments of an article and not directly associated with the treatment. The article is actually in defense of ECT by a recipient, Natasha Tracy, that was published a bit over a decade ago. The comment that includes the word is praising Natasha's article and is from another woman who professes to benefit from the treatments. Natasha's argument is flawed from the beginning though, since she presents it from a skewed perspective (meant to shame those who advocate against ECT) in that it's implied that it's the recipients that we find fault with for cooperating with the providers. It's really taking part in promoting the treatments ... vehemently defending ECT to the point of quoting some neurological details on how well it's actually understood by the doctors ... again, to shame us ... if it's so well understood then why would there be any discernible "memory loss"? (she admits is a side-effect). The question needs to be asked is how could that be accurately evaluated? Granted, I'm thinking that there'd be a retort of "there's memories I'd like to forget" but that's an irrational, emotional defense. I would like to point out that there's also coinciding natural maturing process of the person where they can feel invincible when young adults that can outwardly be revealed with their recklessness and physical risks taken for excitement and that normally would subside in late twenties. (We call that a "variable".)

In this light I would also point out from personal observation (and I'm inserting two paragraphs here, this one and the preceding one, so I may have already mentioned this...) but there are the people in the mental health system culture who are fine with the role of perpetual patient ... people that like to take any opportunity to talk about the abuse they've endured ... oftentimes in such a way to shame anyone who takes a minute to listen ... and that's their purpose in this life in their view. I used the term self-mutilation by proxy which is (obviously) oxymoronic, but as fitting as I can come up with. To promote that lifestyle isn't very responsible or fair. I've probably also mentioned that the recipients are seeking reinforcement and Natasha's article seems to affirm that theory. I'd like to also note that there was a man that commented about ECT helping his wife and he included a link to their/her blog but the link is dead. What's the mortality rate among the people merely commenting on Natasha's article? How many that defended it a decade ago still would now? (I'll probably use the article comments to delve into doing some of my own research eventually.) In the U.S. the confidentiality laws coupled with the exception of a patient's right to review their own psych records is used to the providers' advantage to cover the violating of 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional rights of people caught up in their system.

The proponents' argument for ECT is a house of cards when critically scrutinized! There are a lot of ostensibly legitimate articles that tout ECT as life-saving but there are also many people who regret receiving treatments (and mention their brain damage) yet are not being heard in the medical journal articles or in "mainstream media" when the topic is covered!

Oh! Their other argument is that ECT is non-invasive but my contention is that the "non-invasive" is based on accepted cultural concept of electricity; that it's energy & not a physical material substance or object (& drop the subject since it is a scientific thing & they're the "scientists" there so don't worry about that, type thing), but a question I had is "do electrons have mass" and there was an answer here: "Why does an electron have mass?". Someone with a bachelor's degree in science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute included in the answer: "We know that electrons have mass because we’ve measured it directly.", so electricity has physical mass (or weight) so it is invasive in the literal sense of the word. The providers should know that & disclose the information to the potential recipient!

This article, Electroconvulsive Treatment: Hypotheses about Mechanisms of Action, confirms my theory that the electricty doesn't do anything beneficial that couldn't be achieved in some other truly non-invasive way. I used the expression "adrenaline rush" because that was a generic term that I used when I was younger. I surmised that the people promoting the treatment might've never had such a sensation without a coinciding physical event. There is a kind of (dangerous) illicit drug combination that a person can experience with narcotics or barbiturates and stimulants, i.e., heroin & "speed", that will produce similar sensation without any external physical stimuli. I personally have never tried that combination but have experienced what I determined to be similar sensation with an effective combination of drugs. That was one of my personal comparisons that I utilized, anyway.

In some countries it is legal to use ECT on a involuntary (non-consenting) patient in spite of the fact that the United Nations Human Rights Council has condemned forced psychiatric treatment, including electroshock therapy (ECT).

Dr. Alice Stewart alerted the medical community that x-rays used on pregnant women can harm unborn children and was countered with a study related to the effects of atomic bomb radiation, but there was a difference in type of exposure. 30 more years of x-rayed babies before it changed. (So there's that to consider).