The Center for Mental Health Studies contracted Linda Andre, head of Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, the largest group of shock survivors, to write the following for its ECT report.

But CMHS bowed to heavy pressure from NAMI and the NDMDA, who lobbied hard to keep negative information from the report. CMHS, after hiring Ms. Andre, censored her material.

Here at ect.org we bring you the censored material! Exclusive!

What position does your organization hold on the use of ECT?

First, our organization is unique in being the national organization of and for persons who have received ECT. We are the only organization that can claim to represent ECT survivors or recipients (there being no such thing as an ECT consumer). We are not industry-funded or industry-backed, like other organizations wrongly construed by CMHS to be "consumer" organizations (NDMDA, NAMI) and we do not include family members (NAMI). The agendas of those groups are necessarily very different from ours.

Our founding purpose, back in 1984, was to advocate for truthful informed consent to shock. Shock, as a brain-damaging and permanently life-altering procedure, should never be given without fully informed consent, including when the patient is technically or really involuntary and when the patient is alleged or adjudicated incompetent. We and our allies, such as all 50 federal Protection and Advocacy agencies, have struggled toward that goal for 13. years. At this point we realize that while informed consent may, theoretically, be the law of the land, in real life it is politically impossible to achieve---it is opposed, for instance, by the powerful American Psychiatric Association, which misleads patients with the totally fake "statistic" that only "1 in 200" instead of all persons have permanent memory loss. Since patients cannot have the protection of informed consent before shock, nor can they find redress for lack of informed consent after the fact, a majority of our membership now supports a total ban on shock. But we have not yet formally changed our position statement to reflect the political reality of 1997.

What do you think about involuntary administration of ECT?

Forced shock is the most profound violation of the human spirit imaginable. The use of force is a second injury superimposed upon the damage of the actual shock itself.

It is arguable that forced treatment (of any kind, and especially of the most drastic somatic variety) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution---that is, if constitutional rights are thought to be applicable to mere mental patients. We reject CMHS' position that this is a matter for states to decide.

CTIP members have experienced the entire spectrum of involuntary ECT. The spectrum begins with lack of informed consent; in that sense all patients have involuntary ECT. Then there are gradations of coercion including pressure from family members acting under the instructions of doctors, director indirect pressure from insurance companies unaware of the long term costs of shock, outright threats of what the patient most fears if she does not sign for shock (depending on the patient, this could be being committed; being released without other treatment; being rejected by a doctor; losing housing). At the other end of the spectrum is court-ordered involuntary shock.

What's your position on ECT's effectiveness and safety?

Even the industry-generated "literature" is divided on the issue of efficacy. The longest industry researchers have been able to show any benefit from shock is four weeks. There is no longer any disagreement in the industry that shock's benefits are temporary.

Some researchers have concluded that there is no difference in efficacy between shock and sham or placebo shock. For example, Dr. Graham Shepard of England carefully reviewed all the existing sham vs. real studies, concluded that there were errors in the research, and that no evidence exists for the efficacy of shock. No one has refuted his findings. Not surprisingly, his study has not been allowed to be published, since a small group of hard-core shock promoters and publicists act as gatekeepers at all the journals where it could have found an audience.

ECT is always damaging to brain, memory, and cognition, and this in turn is devastating to personal integrity and sense of self. Ironically, it destroys the very foundations of what we call "mental health." The disabling effects, unlike the effects on depression, are permanent.

What do you feel about ECT as a treatment option?

We believe ECT is only brain damage and that objective scientific investigation will prove this. We are in favor of such an investigation, while the shock industry (APA) opposes it. Even before an investigation, these facts speak volumes about the nature of shock.

The question could be revised to read, "What do you feel about brain damage as a treatment option?" There may be those who are in favor of brain damage for mental patients. We are not among them. Brain damage is not a treatment option.

There is no justification for using this procedure on humans unless and until it is proven safe to the brain by researchers outside the shock industry.

As long as shock continues to be used, it must be followed by intensive rehabilitation and retraining. This should include cognitive rehabilitation of the type offered to survivors of other head injuries, support groups of survivors to share self- rehabilitation strategies, and job retraining.

In general terms, how has your organization been involved with ECT since 1985?

We organized the year before, after having come together to speak out as survivors at the FDA, to advocate for truthful informed consent to ECT and for an objective scientific investigation of the effects of shock on the brain.

In 1985, we advocated for survivor involvement in the NIMH Consensus Conference on ECT, which was overwhelmingly biased in favor of the men who make their livings and reputations promoting shock as safe when it is not. Two of our members spoke on a panel and many others attended and spoke from the floor.