Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:48:17.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Public's Role in the Evaluation of Health Care Technology: The Conflict Over ECT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Elizabeth Heitman
Elizabeth Heitman
Affiliation:
The University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), controversial since its inception, offers an instructive case study on the challenge of addressing patients' perspectives in the evaluation of health care technology. Despite widespread professional acceptance of ECT, groups of former psychiatric patients have worked through the U.S. legal system to restrict and even ban ECT in the treatment of mental illness. This unusual lay participation in the regulation of health care illustrates how differing conceptions of evidence can affect the evaluation of technology. ECT provides a powerful example of the value of a more complex definition of the significant outcomes of treatment and the growing practice of outcomes assessment, especially as such research is used to shape health policy.

Type
Special Section: The Assessment of Psychiatry
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , Fall 1996 , pp. 657 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Abrams, R.Electroconvulsive therapy, 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Abrams, R. ECT technique: Electrode placement, stimulus type, and treatment frequency. In Coffey, E. C. (ed.), The clinical science of electroconvulsive therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Ltd., 1993, 17–28.Google Scholar
3.Aden, v.Youngner, 129 Cal Rptr. 535 (App. Ct. 1976).Google Scholar
4.American Psychiatric Association. Position statement on the question of adequacy of treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1967, 123, 1458–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Electroconvulsive Therapy. The practice of electroconvulsive therapy: Recommendations for treatment, training, and privileging. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1990.Google Scholar
7.American Psychiatric Association. Fact sheet: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Washington, DC: APA, 02 1992.Google Scholar
8.Anonymous. Electroshock hearings in Berkeley. Madness Network News, 1983, 7 (Spring), 6–7, 35–42.Google Scholar
9.Anonymous. Electroshock ban appealed. American Medical News, American Medical Association, 12 9, 1983, 7.Google Scholar
10.Anonymous. Electroshock ban thrown out: Opponents of treatment are angered by Berkeley ruling. Austin American Statesman, 09 17, 1983, A10.Google Scholar
11.Ayd, F. J. Jr. “Guest editorial—Ugo Cerletti, M.D. (1877–1963), Psychosomatics, 1963, 4, A/6-A/7.Google Scholar
12.Bennett, A. E.Editorial: Electroshock and Berkeley. Biological Psychiatry, 1983, 18, 609–10.Google Scholar
13.Beresford, H. R.Legal issues relating to electroconvulsive therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1971, 25, 100–02.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Bloch, S., & Chodoff, P. Introduction. In Bloch, S. & Chodoff, P. (eds.), Psychiatric ethics, 2nd. ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, 1–13.Google Scholar
5.American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Electroconvulsive Therapy. The practice of electroconvulsive therapy: Recommendations for treatment, training, and privileging. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1978.Google Scholar
15.Brandon, S. The history of shock treatment. In Palmer, R. L. (ed.), Electroconvulsive therapy: An appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 3–9.Google Scholar
16.Breggin, P.Toxic psychiatry. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.Google Scholar
17.Calev, A., Pass, H. L., Shapira, B., et al. ECT and memory. In Coffey, E. C. (ed.), The clinical science of electroconvulsive therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Ltd., 125–42.Google Scholar
18.California Welfare and Institutions Code, § § 5326, 5326.3–5, 1974 (repealed). 1976.Google Scholar
19.California Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 5326.2(d), 1976.Google Scholar
20.Cauchon, D. Cover story: Patients often aren't informed of full danger. USA Today, 12 6, 1995, 1A–2A.Google Scholar
21.Cauchon, D. For patients, treatment's value varies. USA Today, 12 6, 1995, 6D.Google Scholar
22.Cauchon, D. Doctor's financial stake in shock therapy. USA Today, 12 6, 1995, 6D.Google Scholar
23.Cauchon, D. More children undergo shock therapy. USA Today, 12 7, 1995, 4D.Google Scholar
24.Cauchon, D. A high-risk case's tragic end. USA Today, 12 7, 1995, 4D.Google Scholar
25.Cerletti, U. Electroconvulsive therapy. Excerpted in Szasz, T. S., From the slaughterhouse to the madhouse. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973, 153–56.Google Scholar
26.Chabasinski, T. Electroshock: Medical cure or physical torture? Daily Californian, 10 26, 1982, 5.Google Scholar
27.Clare, A. Ethical issues relating to ECT: A medical view. In Palmer, R. L. (ed.), Electroconvulsive therapy: An appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 303–14.Google Scholar
28.Coffey, C. E. Structural brain imaging and ECT. In Coffey, C. E. (ed.), The clinical science of electroconvulsive therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc. 1993, 73–92.Google Scholar
29. Colorado Laws 1979, HB 1130, §1. Written consent to electroconvulsive treatments.Google Scholar
30.Crow, T. J., & Johnstone, E. C. Controlled trials of electroconvulsive therapy. In Malitz, S. & Sackheim, H. A. (eds.), Electroconvulsive therapy: Clinical and basic research issues. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1986, 12–29.Google Scholar
31.Crowe, R. R.Electroconvulsive therapy: A current perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 163–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Ellwood, P. M.Shattuck Lecture —Outcomes management: A technology of patient experience. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 1549–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & King, N. M. P.A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996, 114–50.Google Scholar
34.Fink, M.Myths of ‘shock therapy.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977, 134, 991–95.Google ScholarPubMed
35.Fink, M.Convulsive therapy: Theory and practice. New York: Raven Press, 1979.Google Scholar
36.Fink, M. Who should get ECT? In Coffey, C. E. (ed.), The clinical science of electroconvulsive therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1993, 3–15.Google ScholarPubMed
37.Frank, L.The policies and practices of American psychiatry are oppressive. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1986, 37, 497–501.Google ScholarPubMed
38.Frank, L., & Miller, J.Shock packet. Berkeley, CA: Network Against Psychiatric Assault, 1983.Google Scholar
39.Frankel, F. H. Medicolegal and ethical aspects of treatment. In Abrams, R. & Essman, W. B. (eds.), Electroconvulsive therapy: Biological foundations and clinical applications. New York: Spectrum Publications, Inc., 1982, 245–58.Google Scholar
40.Freeman, C. P., & Kendell, R. E.ECT: Patients’experiences and attitudes. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1980, 137, 8–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Freeman, C. P., & Kendell, E. Patients’ experience of and attitudes to ECT. In Palmer, R. L. (ed.), Electroconvulsive therapy: An appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 270–87.Google Scholar
42.Freeman, C. P., Weeks, D., & Kendall, R. E. Patients who complain about ECT. In Palmer, R. L. (ed.), Electroconvulsive therapy: An appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 253–69.Google Scholar
43.Friedberg, J.Electroshock therapy: Let's stop blasting the brain. Psychology Today, 1975, 9 (08), 18–19, 98–99.Google ScholarPubMed
44.Friedberg, J.Shock treatment is not good for your brain. San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1976.Google Scholar
45.Gonzalez, E. R.ECT and memory loss: The debate goes on. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1979, 241, 2695–96.Google Scholar
46.Gostin, L. O. A jurisprudential and ethical examination of electroconvulsive therapy. In Palmer, R. L. (ed.), Electroconvulsive therapy: An appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 288–302.Google Scholar
47.Hager, P.Fate of electroshock therapy in Berkeley in voters' hands. Los Angeles Times, 08 17, 1982, 1, 3.Google Scholar
48.Hager, P. Suit seeks to void ban on shock therapy. Los Angeles Times, 12 15, 1982, 118.Google Scholar
49.Hughes, J., Barraclough, B. M., & Reeve, W.Are patients shocked by ECT? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1974, 74, 283–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.Ingleby, D. (ed.), Critical psychiatry: The politics of mental illness. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.Google Scholar
51.Jones, S.Electroshock opposed on clinical and constitutional grounds. Modern Medicine, 1975, 43 (02 15), 29.Google Scholar
52.Kalayemam, B., & Steinhart, M. J.Survey of attitudes on the use of electroconvulsive therapy. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1981, 32, 185–88.Google Scholar
53.Kalowinsky, L. B. The history of electroconvulsive therapy. In Abrams, R. & Essman, W. B. (eds.), Electroconvulsive therapy: Biological foundations and clinical applications. New York: Spectrum Publications, Inc., 1982, 1–5.Google Scholar
54.Kalowinsky, L. B. History of convulsive therapy. In Malitz, S. & Sackheim, H. A. (eds.), Electroconvulsive therapy: Clinical and basic research issues. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1986, 1–4.Google Scholar
55.Kapur, S., & Mann, J. J. Antidepressant action and the neurobiologic effects of ECT: Human studies. In Coffey, C. E. (ed.), The clinical science of electroconvulsive therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1993, 235–50.Google Scholar
56.Kendall, J. North shuns shock therapy and gun ban. Los Angeles Times, 11 4, 1982, 11–5.Google Scholar
58.Kramer, B. A.Use of ECT in California, 1977–1983. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1985, 142, 1190–92.Google ScholarPubMed
59.Linington, A., & Harris, B.Fifty years of electroconvulsive therapy. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 1354–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.McCaffery, M., & Thorpe, D. M.Differences in perception of pain and the development of adversarial relationship among health care providers. Advances in Pain Research and Therapy, 1989, 11, 113–21.Google Scholar
57.Kesey, K.One flew over the cuckoo's nest. New York: Viking Press, Inc., 1962.Google Scholar
61.McCall, W. V.Physical treatments in psychiatry: Current and historical use in the southern United States. Southern Medical Journal, 1989, 82, 345–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.McKinlay, J. B.From ‘promising report’ to ‘standard procedure’: Seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1981, 59, 374–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63.Merskey, H. Ethical aspects of the physical manipulation of the brain. In Bloch, S. & Chodoff, P. (eds.), Psychiatric ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, 185–214.Google Scholar
64.Miller, J.Berkeley's shock ban overturned: Supporters vow fight. Madness Network News, 1983, 7, 1, 3.Google Scholar
65.Miller, J. Psychiatry as a tool of repression. Science for the People, 1983 (03/04), 14–17, 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66.Morgan, G. E., & Mikhail, M. S.Clinical anesthesiology. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1996, 514–16.Google Scholar
67.Northern California Psychiatric Society v. City of Berkeley, 223 Cal. Rptr. 609 (App. Ct. 1986).Google Scholar
68.Orwell, G.Nineteen eighty-four. New York: NAL-Dutton, 1950.Google Scholar
69.Palmer, R. L. Introduction. In Palmer, R. L. (ed.), Electroconvulsive therapy: An appraisal. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981, 1–18.Google Scholar
70.Peterson, G. N.Consensus on electroconvulsive therapy (letter). Journal of the American Medical Association, 1986, 255, 2028.Google Scholar
71.Plath, S.The bell jar. New York: Bantam Books, 1975.Google Scholar
72.Potter, W. Z., & Rudorfer, M. V.Electroconvulsive therapy: A modern medical procedure. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 328, 882–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73.Raskin, I. E., & Maklan, C. W.Medical treatment effectiveness research: A view from inside the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 1991, 14, 161–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75.Rudin, E.Psychiatric treatment: General implications and lessons from recent court decisions in California. Western Journal of Medicine, 1978, 128, 459–66.Google ScholarPubMed
74.Rifkin, A.ECT versus tricyclic antidepressants in depression: A review of the evidence. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1988, 49, 3–7.Google ScholarPubMed
76.Sackheim, H. A., Prudic, J., Devanand, D. P., et al. Effects of stimulus intensity and electrode placement on the efficacy and cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 328, 839–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77.Selvin, B. L.Electroconvulsive therapy—1987. Anesthesiology, 1987, 67, 367–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78.Squire, L. R.ECT and memory loss. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977,134, 997–1000.Google ScholarPubMed
79.Squire, L. R., & Slater, P. C.Electroconvulsive therapy and memory deficit: A prospective three-year follow-up study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1988, 142, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80.Squire, L. R., & Zouzounis, J. A.Self-ratings of memory dysfunction: Different findings in depression and amnesia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 1988, 10, 727–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81.Sullivan, W. C. Statement on electro-convulsive shock therapy: Testimony to the Vermont House of Representatives, April II, 1996.Google Scholar
82.Tancredi, L. R., & Slaby, A. E.Ethical policy in health care: The goals of psychiatric intervention. New York: William Heinemann Medical Books Ltd., 1977.Google Scholar
83. Texas Acts 1993, 73rd Legislature, ch. 705, §5.01.Google Scholar
84. Texas House Bill 2452, 07 1995.Google Scholar
85.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 21CFR, Part 882, Neurological devices; Proposed rule to reclassify the electroconvulsive therapy device intended for use in treating severe depression. Federal Register, 1990, 55, 172 (09 5), 36578–90.Google Scholar
86.U.S. National Institutes of Health. Consensus conference: Electroconvulsive therapy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 2103–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87. Vermont House Bill H313, 01 1996.Google Scholar
88. West Virginia Senate Bill No. 85, 01 1996.Google Scholar
89.Winslade, W. J., Liston, E. H., Ross, J. W., & Weber, K. D.Medical, judicial, and statutory regulation of ECT in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1984, 141, 1349-55.Google ScholarPubMed