For Foolproof, the perpetually disingenuous troll:
You can’t participate in a civil, logical debate here and answer simple questions with factual answers based on references to empirical , scientific research. Your responses are, instead, sarcastic insults and attempts to derail and misdirect. Thanks, again, for the predictable graphic display of scientological arrogance and inability to reason and defend assertions and claims.
Your own cult defines stupidity as unknownness of time,place, form, and event; the readers here thank you for your consistently amusing and breathtaking demonstrations of that definition.
Still waiting for direct, factual answers from you; I want to believe that you can do something other than talk shit here. Bring the links here to the empirical, scientific data that supports your points and I will happily peruse it!

Yoda says: “The Ev Purps are strong with this one!”

“ECT of course has actual scientific studies to support its effectiveness.”

I know it has studies to support its “effectiveness”, though you would be a good sport to support your statement, next time, with links to research. I’m not accusing you of bullshitting, but it’s a good habit to pick up when it comes to “contentious” issues.

What worries me is the question of consent to ECT. I’m at a loss when it comes to pinpointing studies evaluating to which extent patients consent to ECT. All I find are newspapers articles (which I won’t link here because I do not want to be “accused” of “supporting” scientology).

In that newspaper article:

“In total, 96 patients in Northern Ireland were treated with ECT in 2014-15, both with consent and without. The BBC has learned that within that year there were 53 referrals to carry out electroconvulsive therapy on patients without their consent. This is up from the year 2011-12, when the figure was 36. In 2013-14 there were 55 such referrals.”

This is remarkably unsourced…

But yes, I do not know of a single patient that I personally met that has undergone ECT. But again, I lived somewhere where I do not believe it was practiced, so that’s also called selection bias. In the end, I have no solid clue, whether personal or scientific, as to the issue of consent to ECT in the places where it is practiced. And I’d really like to know.

Because I find it remarkably antiscientific not to disclose such kind of data in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Smokee,

Fool, while mildly annoying, actually helps me see how very, very, very crazy the world of scientology is. In a way, he is preforming a service for never-ins like me. Its almost impossible for me to understand how the cult works without his raving about Hubbard’s glorious brilliance (in actuality stupidity) and seeing his single-minded rabid defense of said ideas. besides, its actually interesting to bait him and watch him froth at the mouth…mean, but interesting.

Kat

Fool,

why don’t you mosey over to YouTube and look at pictures of people being saved with AED? that is also not pleasant to watch, but I bet if you asked the people saved by electrical shock to their heart to restart it, they wouldnt complain….

Kat

Foolproof,

You always mock what you dont understand. ECT is NOT in common use. It is used ONLY if there are absolutely no other options and if the patient agrees to it. NO ONE is dragged off the street involuntarily and shocked.

Even though the mechanisms of the treatment are unknown, the results are almost always positive-. Some patients are not helped, but that is true in ANY medical procedure. Like many things in life, we may not understand it completely, but if it works, why shouldn’t it be offered to alleviate someones suffering? Or should we just withhold the possible treatment because you and others like you say we should?

Maybe one day, we will have all of the answers to how the brain works, as well as non-controversial ways to ‘fix’ mental illness that work for everyone and have no side effects. However, right now we do not have that- just like the rabid anti-vaxxers do not have another way to protect people from disease. They rant and rave against something they dont understand, take bits and pieces of unfinished and unsubstantiated research that have been repeatedly proven wrong, but offer no alternative solution. and before you argue- scientology is NOT an alternative solution to psychiatric help.

It seems to me, the people who are the most outspoken about things they disagree with are the ones who do not actually have any skin in the game. If you have never suffered from mental illness, why are you so rabid about the ways that are used to help? Is it because your mentally imbalanced leader Hubbard told you to be? and why was Hubbard so against psychiatry?? maybe because he WAS treated by psychiatrists?? why else would he be so rabid about the profession- ESPECIALLY when he originally sought their validation. That type of animosity doesn’t happen unless its a personal quest- like someone who looked up to a profession and wanted to impress their ‘mentor’ yet failed. Hubbards reaction tells me that he had some deep personal connection to the field and was crushed when he was rejected by them. That is why he was forever denigrating psychiatry. The timeline doesn’t lie.

Kat

Thanks for extending an olive branch. Much appreciated.

“I do believe that you are extrapolating a very specific situation with your mother to apply to a whole field of medicine that helps a lot of people.”

I believe that my position is much more subtle. I violently disagree with both psychiatry and “antipsychiatry” in many ways. I also violently agree with psychiatry and “antipsychiatry” in many ways. I indeed had to make my way through all the cognitive biases on all sides and to some extent I am still going through that process.

“I don’t believe any of them are scientologists, and, except for your comments, I have never seen that idea afloat anywhere.”

You should pay much more attention to what some psychiatrists really think. Not only what they appear to think. But it’s a really long shot to achieve that, I must say, and I sincerely hope you’ll never get around to that. Many psychiatrists are fine people who may or may not be misguided. Some psychiatrists have very nasty ideologies, and it’s a very diverse bunch of ideologies. Hopefully, patients can still rather often find something that helps them, even from an “evil” psychiatrist, but that’s in no way a universal statement.

I wish I could be more positive on the topic. Glad they got you off the street.

I would like to offer you an olive branch, followed by a hug. Hope things get better. If you are looking for support you could try NAMI.org. There are local affiliates everywhere offering support groups, classes, and peer support for free.

It sounds like you’ve been through heck and back. I do not think all people who disagree with psychiatry are scientologists. I do not see how you got that impression but it is certainly not among my beliefs. I do believe that you are extrapolating a very specific situation with your mother to apply to a whole field of medicine that helps a lot of people. I hope you can find healing somehow. It is not my intention to hurt you or invalidate your suffering in any way. I myself was raped by a pediatrician in a hospital when i was 8 years old, but I don’t blame all pediatricians for my trauma. I know many people, friends, who choose not to take medicines or be under the care of a psychiatrist. I support them through their crisis points as they support me through mine. I don’t believe any of them are scientologists, and, except for your comments, I have never seen that idea afloat anywhere.