Shock Therapy: The History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness [Hardcover]

Prof. Edward Shorter (Author), Prof. David Healy (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 27, 2007

Shock therapy is making a comeback today in the treatment of serious mental illness. Despite its reemergence as a safe and effective psychiatric tool, however, it continues to be shrouded by a longstanding negative public image, not least due to films such as the classic One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, where the inmate of a psychiatric clinic (played by Jack Nicholson) is subjected to electro-shock to curb his rebellious behavior. Beyond its vilification in popular culture, the stereotype of convulsive therapy as a dangerous and inhumane practice is fuelled by professional posturing and public misinformation.Electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, has in the last thirty years been considered a method of last resort in the treatment of debilitating depression, suicidal ideation, and other forms of mental illness. Yet, ironically, its effectiveness in treating these patients would suggest it as a frontline therapy, bringing relief from acute symptoms and saving lives. In this book, Edward Shorter and David Healy trace the controversial history of ECT and other "shock" therapies. Drawing on case studies, public debates, extensive interviews, and archival research, the authors expose the myths about ECT that have proliferated over the years.By showing ECT's often life-saving results, Shorter and Healy endorse a point of view that is hotly contested in professional circles and in public debates, but for the nearly half of all clinically depressed patients who do not respond to drugs, this book brings much needed hope.

Editorial Reviews

Review

Shock Therapy is based on contemporary research that includes both manuscript and printed sources as well as interviews with individuals who have played key roles in the history of ECT. Nevertheless, the book--which includes discussions of such contemporary therapeutic innovations as VNS, DBS, and TMS-must read and has relevance for those concerned with the treatment of mental disorders.

(Gerald N. Grob coauthor of The Dilemma of Federal Mental Health Policy: Radical Reform or Incr )

About the Author

Edward Shorter is the Jason A. Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at the University of Toronto. He is the author of numerous books, including A History of Psychiatry and Written in the Flesh.

David Healy is a professor of psychiatry in the Department of Psychological Medicine at Cardiff University. Formerly, he was the secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology and the author of more than twelve books, including Let Them Eat Prozac.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 398 pages
• Publisher: Rutgers University Press; 1 edition (September 27, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813541697
• ISBN-13: 978-0813541693
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.4 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,258,889 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Shock Treatment - Schlock History, April 26, 2008

By 

Richard Warner (Seattle, WA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Shock Therapy: The History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness (Hardcover)

In this book, the Edward Shorter and David Healy claim that, "it is not our goal to establish whether ECT causes memory problems beyond the relatively short-term difficulties that everyone agrees can arise for some people immediately after treatment." (p. 214)

The statement is typical of the shallow and disingenuous character of the book. To claim that it's not your goal to establish whether ECT causes memory problems, i.e., to imply that you are taking a "neutral" stance, and then proceed to argue only one side of the debate - this is the stuff of clever editorials, not legitimate historical analysis.

Psychiatry has always pursued a Don't Look, Don't Tell policy when it comes to shock treatment. For example, the American Psychiatric Association's 1990 task force report on ECT cited one 1986 study, by Freeman and Kendell, in claiming, "A small minority of patients, however, report persistent deficits." Compare this with what Freeman and Kendall actually wrote: "We were surprised by the large number who complained of memory impairment. Many of them did so spontaneously without being prompted, and a striking 30% felt that their memory had been permanently affected."

Shorter and Healy ignore this pattern and instead adopt it. They misrepresent the shock literature, leave out important studies, and completely avoid important issues, including the almost universal relapse of patients following shock, psychiatry's refusal to conduct proper studies of shock's effects, and the fact that, while patients in community settings are commonly shocked at electrical doses grossly in excess of the American Psychiatric Association recommended guidelines, researchers never employ such levels.

This is a credulous and poorly researched paean to shock treatment. The research literature is mostly ignored and the voices of patients are mostly silent and, if heard, quickly dismissed. Those who are searching for the truth about shock treatment will not find it here.

12 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Don't be shocked by Shock Therapy, December 16, 2008

By 

Patrick Farrell - See all my reviews

This review is from: Shock Therapy: The History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness (Hardcover)

The previous reviews are deeply committed to warring against any account which does not privilege the demonizing, one-flew-over-the-cuckoo's-nest, characterization of ECT. Take the time to visit ect.org yourself, and you'll read numerous accounts of people who have experienced the treatment who do not share the gloomy, conspiratorial opinions of the site's founders.

The polarizing argument plaguing this issue does no one any good. Shorter and Healey's book make clear that the treatment should not be used on people who are already disposed to worries about its effects. The authors show convincingly that the treatment has always depended on the therapeutic value of seizures.

As far as Richard Warner's claim that the book is "a credulous and poorly researched paean to shock treatment," this will be plainly contradicted by anyone who takes the time to read it. The authors have provided an excellent account of the treatment's origins and different permutations over the years, any effort to read the book will be repaid.

I do think though that the authors could have given more discussion to the profoundly conflicting opinions over the treatment, and I don't think they give enough voice to those who hold sincere complaints about their experiences.

Nevertheless, Shock Therapy overs a superb account of the history and development of this still highly controversial psychiatric treatment.

19 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars So much research was ignored, February 14, 2008

By 

Juli Lawrence "ect.org" (New York) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Shock Therapy: The History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness (Hardcover)

This book is a great disappointment. So much research was ignored, research that would contradict the authors' point of view.

That's a shame in a book which has been promoted as a major contribution to the body of work on ECT. It has completely ignored (once again) the viewpoints and experiences of shock patients. To have excluded so much literature that would counter the authors' conclusions seems to prove that patients really don't matter; paternalism does.

I am just stunned, as are many of Dr. Healy's former supporters in the psychiatric rights community, that he and Shorter would even publish such a book. It is "scientific review" at its very worst.