Forced to undergo ECT against her will

The court of world opinion was swift and angry when the media broadcast images of a grieving Russian mother being tranquilized after speaking her mind. Her son was one of those killed in the Kursk submarine disaster in August. Media immediately latched onto the story, outraged that a grieving mother would be injected without her consent.

Where were the media two days before, when Kathleen Garrett was being forcibly electroshocked?

Initially, St. Louis media showed a great amount of interest. However, they were quickly stifled after talking to representatives of the corporation that played a large part in Mrs. Garrett's plight, Tenet Healthcare Corporation. Whether they honestly fell for Tenet's line of "There is no story here," or whether they were scared off by the great power that Tenet has in the St. Louis area, I don't know.

Media sources have said that officials at Tenet said there was no story because Kathleen signed a release statement.

"When I arrived at the hospital the morning of her release," said Steve Vance, Mrs. Garrett's son, "they were trying to get her to sign a statement saying she wanted more shock." This was shortly after they shocked her the morning of her release. Steve is a licensed social worker for the city of St. Louis.

Both Kathleen and Steve have been adamant that she did not want the treatments. Legal documents, however, gave Ricky Mofsen D.O. and Tenet-owned hospitals Southpointe and Des Peres the right to shock her against her will.

How can this be? This is a question that I have been repeatedly asked since the story was brought to the public. Psychiatric rights activists have long understood that people can be forced into psychiatric treatment, including ECT. It seems unbelievable that in the year 2000 someone can be forced into such an invasive procedure, but it happens. And it is not infrequent.

I estimate that between 4,000 and 10,000 persons are given ECT on an involuntary basis - against their will - in America every year. It is only an estimate, and I base the numbers on statistics supplied from the California Department of Mental Health.

Why can't I be more precise? Because only six states are required by state law to keep any records concerning ECT. We don't even know how many people in the US have ECT. Any numbers you see (usually 100,000 to 200,000 persons annually in the US) are estimates only. (If this outrages you, as it should, contact your legislators and demand that they look into this lack of record keeping at the federal level. Contact lenses face more regulation than does the practice of ECT!)

So how did this happen to Kathleen?

She has a history of depression and had ECT twice in her life. She says that both times it did not help her, and she suffered severe memory loss. She asked her son Steve to promise that they would never do that to her again, and it's a promise he made to his beloved mother. Sadly, it was not a promise he could keep, thanks to the actions of Ricky Mofsen, DO. (Mofsen did his residency at SUNY, home of shock granddad Max Fink!!!)

Ricky told Kathleen that he wanted her to have ECT. She said no, and he said "See you in court." And he did exactly that, taking her to court to force it.

Her son Steve hired an attorney to fight it, trying desperately to keep his mother's promise. Steve says that the doctor obviously drugged his mother heavily and she was deliberately unkempt, and brought in on a gurney. "Of course this made her look awful," Steve says. "I believe it was a manipulative action to make her appear as bad as possible."

Steve says that in the court hearing (court transcripts are on this website with Mrs. Garrett's full authority; there are some court documents here) his mother was asked if she wanted the shock treatments and she said no.

Despite her wishes, and the firm wishes of her son (who was given power of attorney in hopes that it would hold some weight in the court action), the judge ruled that Mofsen could shock Mrs. Garrett against her will.

It's long been known that older women are the number one targets of shock docs. Statistics that are available (California and Ontario are the best stats we have) bear this out. Mrs. Garrett became another statistic that day.

Steve has expressed concerns about payoffs, and originally, I thought this was over the top. Then information began to surface about just whom Steve and his mother were dealing with.

It came to light that the hospital involved was owned by Tenet, the same chain involved in the largest fraud scandal in the history of the United States. Suddenly, the allegations that were floating around began to carry some weight.

Steve says that his mother was getting along reasonably well, but that she does suffer some depression common to older people: loneliness since her husband died, plus the fact that she had undergone extensive treatments for breast cancer: surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy.

"This would leave anyone in a sad state," says Steve. "But she wasn't suicidal or even close. It was depression associated with the cancer treatments. She really needed someone to talk to."

Instead of talk, she got force. Steve says that Mofsen had repeatedly given Kathleen a number to Behavioral Health Response, and said to call anytime when she needed to talk to someone. Mrs. Garrett has stated that she believed it to be a phone line simply to chat with someone when she was lonely.