Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Rob Evans writes "In the current medicolegal climate the implications
of operating outside the NICE guidelines are likely to trump other
considerations such as patient choice". This is a bit disngenuous to say
the least. That the question of cognitive impairment resulting from use of
ECT has yet to properly evaluated is a shocking indictment of the
psychiatric establishment's arrogance, scientific ineptitude and failure
to listen.
As a psychology undergraduate student 27 years ago patients at
the local psychiatruic hospital were being ushered out of view by
psychiatrists when complaints of memory problems were aired - YES 27 years
ago. ECT is the preferred choice of psychiatrists not patients. The
reasons for the conflict between the NICE guidelines and those of the RCP
are not difficult to discern. The promulgation of a variety of physical
treatments offered in psychiatry for psychological problems have a dubious
scientific basis and owe as much to the desire for professional prestige,
power and control as they do to efficacy. Confusion amongst prescribers?
Time to ditch the biological ideology and look at the evidence - perhaps
that will end it.
Electroconvulsive therapy: Confusion does not stem from the evidence
Rob Evans writes "In the current medicolegal climate the implications
of operating outside the NICE guidelines are likely to trump other
considerations such as patient choice". This is a bit disngenuous to say
the least. That the question of cognitive impairment resulting from use of
ECT has yet to properly evaluated is a shocking indictment of the
psychiatric establishment's arrogance, scientific ineptitude and failure
to listen.
As a psychology undergraduate student 27 years ago patients at
the local psychiatruic hospital were being ushered out of view by
psychiatrists when complaints of memory problems were aired - YES 27 years
ago. ECT is the preferred choice of psychiatrists not patients. The
reasons for the conflict between the NICE guidelines and those of the RCP
are not difficult to discern. The promulgation of a variety of physical
treatments offered in psychiatry for psychological problems have a dubious
scientific basis and owe as much to the desire for professional prestige,
power and control as they do to efficacy. Confusion amongst prescribers?
Time to ditch the biological ideology and look at the evidence - perhaps
that will end it.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests