I am always amazed at the lack of understanding by those who have no concept what newspapers are all about. I worked many years in newspapers as reporter and editor, and it never failed to amaze me when I got irate calls from people who wanted a story told from their point of view, rather than simply telling the facts best we could.

When someone loves what is said by a newspaper, they yell hooray. But more often the case is that they don't like what a newspaper article says...so they attack the messenger. I've seen that over and over regarding this series on electroconvulsive therapy, published by USA Today in December 1995.

A handful of ECT zealots have cried that USA Today is a lousy paper, equivalent of the tabloid gossip sheets. They've charged that the series is sloppy journalism and someone should SUE! If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hysterically funny. Ironically, many of these same people lauded different articles from USA Today, when it said what they wanted to hear.

Those same people constantly accuse myself and other psychiatric rights advocates of being Scientologists. In fact, Richard Abrams, author of the text "Convulsive Therapy," devotes several pages to these charges.

For the record, those of us who work together in psychiatric rights are NOT Scientologists. It's a shame we constantly have to defend ourselves from this charge...apparently it's easier to diffuse the issue than to face it down and discuss it like intelligent adults. But think about it...where there's smoke, there's fire.

There are reasons that we work in psychiatric rights. Life would be a lot more fun if we could just save the whales.

To this day, the ECT advocates (mostly comprised of doctors/researchers in the ECT field, psychiatric patients who have never had ECT, a couple of people who *have* had ECT or with relatives who have had it, and officials from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) deny that ECT patients even have any permanent complications such as memory loss. This completely ignores the thousands and thousands of people who claim the contrary.

USA Today made a huge commitment when it assigned its reporter, Dennis Cauchon, to investigate ECT. It was such a huge, complex issue that USA Today turned it into a 12-part series.

And those critics who have, instead of arguing that ECT is a good thing, blasted that USA Today is a crappy paper anyway haven't even thoroughly read the series. If they had, they would have noticed that the series is NOT anti-ECT. Of the 12 articles, two tell success stories, and two tell the stories of people who had bad results. That's pretty fair, in my opinion. And the rest of the articles quote experts from both sides of the issue throughout. If the series was unbalanced, no one would hear from the ECT advocates.

Anyone who claims this is shoddy reporting is simply on the defensive about ECT. This is some of the best reporting I've seen. (and I worked as an editor for years...I know good reporting and bad reporting)

USA Today and Dennis Cauchon should be applauded for their efforts. It's a rare thing for any media to devote four months on a subject like ECT. With the relatively small number that ECT affects annually (approximately 100,000), that kind of commitment was not a money maker for them. It was extensive and in depth, and is an example of what journalism *should* be.

In today's climate of 10-second sound bites, USA Today has produced a masterpiece.

About this series ...an overview of the series and the history of ECT.

Famous ECT patients. How did ECT affect Dick Cavett, Sen. Thomas Eagleton, Lou Reed, Ernest Hemingway and Sylvia Plath?

How does ECT work? Researchers disagree, but here are the current theories.

Some of the issues surrounding electroconvulsive therapy

Hospitals such as Mayo and UCLA are quietly studying the effects of ECT on children. Only two states ban the use of ECT on those under 12. Proponents say it works on behavior and mood. Opponents say it's harming still-developing brain tissue.

Reporter Dennis Cauchon used that old tenet of journalism...follow the money trail. This article highlights the many conflicts of interest encircling ECT. The scandal is much deeper, and the Shocked! page will be reporting on this in the near future. What's wrong with owning one of the manufacturers of ECT machinery? Well, how would you feel if your doctor owned part of Pfizer, and therefore prescribed only Zoloft, even though Paxil might work better for you?

Informed consent for ECT. This is the biggest issue among ECT advocates, and one all people should agree on...ECT patients deserve complete, informed consent. Yet very often, they don't get it. Richard Abrams, in his text "Convulsive Therapy," advocates 'passive implied consent.' I don't understand how anyone can argue against informed consent, yet ECT advocates do it, arguing that mental patients don't know what's best for them.

ECT is sometimes proclaimed to be a miracle, quick-fix cure. However, most often, any positive results don't last beyond four weeks. This article examines some of the studies that are available, success rates and other questions.

The ECT advocates say severe memory loss doesn't exist. Most people who have had ECT say it does. This article contains some information on memory loss.

Personal stories on ECT

These articles are about the real people of ECT...the patients who have undergone the treatment. You'll find positive and negative outcomes.

Valerie is 8 years old, and credits her dog with curing her depression. Her mother says it was the 19 ECT treatments she had. Her psychiatrist says that eventually, Valerie would have gotten better, but that the ECT made recovery quicker.

Gene Decker credits shock therapy with saving his life. He has side effects, such as memory loss, but says they are worth it. Decker says it's like he went in and the doctor flipped a switch, and he came out cured.

Delores McQueen had 20 treatments, and they didn't work. Her memory loss is very typical of ECT patients: forgetting the names of children and forgetting past life events. Her doctors said the memory loss was from depression. But like so many others, she didn't have severe memory loss before the ECT.

32-year-old Roberto Ardizzone died shortly after his ECT treatment after going into shock on the table. His brother says that ECT is the treatment saved for worthless people.

next: A High-Risk Case's Tragic End