CCHR Warns Global Survey Confirms Electroshock Risks Hidden From Public

LOS ANGELES - Aug. 25, 2025 - PRLog -- A groundbreaking study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics has revealed that nearly 60% of people subjected to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), commonly called electroshock, reported they were not adequately informed about its serious risks. The study is the largest international survey of its kind, spanning 44 countries, including the U.S., and drawing responses from 1,144 individuals, including both recipients and their family members.[1] The mental health industry watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), which has documented psychiatric abuses for more than five decades, said the findings confirm what its own investigations have long shown: gross violations of informed consent rights. CCHR encouraged U.S. electroshock recipients who had contacted it to participate in the survey and share their experiences.

Researchers from the University of East London, who conducted the study, emphasized: "The legal implications of not ensuring informed consent are substantial." They cited a 2023 Florida case in which a jury found an ECT device manufacturer had failed to warn about device risks, which include potential brain damage.

Electroshock treatment involves sending an electrical current through the brain to induce a grand mal seizure, typically administered in six to 12 sessions under general anesthesia. Mounting evidence continues to show its dangerous, even lethal risks.

Survey Findings

The survey included 858 ECT recipients and 286 relatives or friends. The largest number of responses came from the United States (46% of recipients), followed by the United Kingdom (14%), Australia (11%), Canada (8%), and several other countries.

Disturbingly, 63% of respondents said they were only told that ECT might cause "temporary memory problems." Yet the 2025 American Psychiatric Association's Task Force Report on The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy warns of far more serious "major risks," including mortality, adverse cardiovascular and neurological effects, and memory loss that can persist "for months or years, or even permanently."

Nowhere in the APA's 470-page report is there any research on how often patients are properly informed of these dangers—a gap underscored by the new study.

The APA also acknowledges patients must be told there is "no guarantee that ECT will be effective" and that relapse rates after treatment are substantial.

CCHR says these admissions highlight both the dangers and the failure of the procedure, making it also redundant.

Scientific and Safety Concerns

The University of East London study also pointed to other studies supporting concerns:

• A meta-analysis concluded that ECT is "probably ineffective but certainly causes brain damage."
• Only 11 placebo-controlled studies comparing ECT with "sham" ECT (where anesthesia is given but no electricity administered) have ever been conducted, the most recent in 1985. None met modern scientific standards.
• Harvard placebo expert Dr. Irving Kirsch coauthored a review finding that high-quality studies showed no lasting benefit of ECT compared to sham treatments.
• The UK Government's ECT Review Group determined there is "no direct evidence that ECT prevents suicide."
• Cardiac risks are significant. A 2019 review found 1 in 50 patients suffered major adverse cardiac events. Updated analysis of five more studies raised this risk to between 1 in 15 and 1 in 30—making cardiac complications a major cause of ECT-related deaths.
• An Australian audit found official ECT information sheets "lacked accuracy and balance," often exaggerating benefits and minimizing harm.

In 2023, the World Health Organization and United Nations jointly confirmed that individuals recommended for ECT must be fully informed of risks, including memory loss and brain damage. CCHR stresses that these rights are routinely violated worldwide—even after 87 years of use—further warranting a ban.

Survey respondents also reported being misled by claims such as:

• "Depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain" (told to 58% of recipients and 53% of relatives/friends).
• "ECT corrects a chemical imbalance or brain abnormality" (told to 42% and 41%).

CCHR notes that the "chemical imbalance" theory has been widely discredited, yet it remains used to justify coercive or uninformed psychiatric practices.

The majority of respondents were women, with ages at last ECT ranging from 12 to 87 years old. Most (73%) underwent the procedure between 2010 and 2024.

Professor John Read, the lead researcher in the study and a clinical psychology expert, previously wrote about electroshock: "Not only do we not know whether it works, or how many people end up permanently damaged by it, we don't even know how often it's still being used, globally. The US, for example, has no national monitoring of the numbers whatsoever. The ballpark figure of 100,000 people a year has become something of a mantra."[2]

Call for Abolition

For more than 50 years, CCHR has advocated for the abolition of electroshock, exposing its lack of scientific foundation and its devastating impact on individuals and families.

Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International, stated: "The use of electroshock is outdated, dangerous, and unnecessary. On an immediate basis, Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, and state government insurance should stop coverage for this practice, while the Food and Drug Administration should remove ECT devices from the market, and states move to ban it outright."

The group recommends that mental health consumers, their families, and policymakers watch its documentary, Therapy or Torture: The Truth About Electroshock

About CCHR: It was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz as a mental health industry watchdog. With chapters on six continents, CCHR has been instrumental in securing more than 190 laws that protect individuals from psychiatric abuse, including laws banning the use of ECT on minors in several U.S. states and Australia.

Sources:

[1] John Read, et al., "A large exploratory survey of electroconvulsive therapy recipients, family members and friends: what information do they recall being given?" Journal of Medical Ethics, 10 Aug. 2025, jme.bmj.com/content/early/2025/06/03/jme-2024-110629

[2] John Read, "Shocked: With evidence for efficacy so thin, and the stakes so high, why is 'electroshock' therapy still a mainstay of psychiatry," AEON, 4 Mar. 2021, aeon.co/essays/why-is-electroshock-therapy-still-a-mainstay-of-psychiatry