Psychology and electroconvulsive therapy (II): Interested consensus lacking in evidence

1Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

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

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free