This paper and its first part attempt to comprehend the use of electroshock, a technique whose effectiveness has not been unequivocally demonstrated. The lack of conclusive evidence has generated consensus, but it does not come from a genuine interdisciplinary debate. The concept of therapeutic inhibition is unfounded. Electroshock reduces the sense of personal efficacy and autonomy that characterizes healthy functioning and introduces an implicit stigmatizing message of causality in terms of brain malfunction. There are no specific laws in Spain that regulate this procedure. The quality of the information provided to the patient is poor and could lead to professional liability. Due to its exceptional nature, electroshock should not be considered as just another therapy like any other. Professionals can exercise conscientious objection for ethical and scientific reasons. An interdisciplinary perspective would be to call for potentially less harmful treatment alternatives.
CITATION STYLE
González-Pando, D., de la Garza, C. L. S., Aparicio-Basauri, V., Arboleya, T., González-Menéndez, A. M., Méndez-Salguero, A., & Pérez-álvarez, M. (2020). Psychology and electroconvulsive therapy (II): Interested consensus lacking in evidence. Papeles Del Psicologo, 41(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2020.2924
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.