Are critiques of ECT scaremongering or contributions to informed consent?

Abstract

A team of six researchers, including three people who have had ECT themselves, respond to an Editorial entitled 'Electroconvulsive therapy and its image: between human rights, evidence, and clinical responsibility'. Their work is portrayed as polarising debate and scaring psychiatrists and services away from offering ECT. The researchers argue that they are contributing to the ethical principle of informed consent. They provide research evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of ECT, including their own recent international survey of patients and relatives, to support their argument.