Evidence
Modern psychiatry still uses ECT. But growing legal precedent, peer-reviewed research, and global human rights guidance point to serious, long-overlooked harms. Below is a structured summary of key findings.
Landmark Legal Victories for Patient Rights
These cases revealed that ECT manufacturers failed to warn patients and physicians about significant risks:
Rice v. Nardini (1975): In this precedent-setting case, Marilyn Rice sued Dr. John Nardini for administering ECT without proper consent, leading to memory impairment.
Salters v. Palmetto Health Alliance (2005): A jury found that doctors prescribing ECT for Nurse Peggy Salters caused full disability, including loss of memory spanning 30 years. The hospital settled early in the trial.
Schnulle v. Somatics (2022): Janelle Schnulle underwent 33 ECT sessions resulting in permanent brain damage, impairing her memory and learning. A federal court allowed strict liability claims but dismissed inadequate warning claims.
Thelen v. Somatics (2024): A jury found the manufacturer had failed to warn of ECT device risks. Jeffrey Thelen received 95 treatments between 2014 and 2016.
Himes v. Somatics (2024): The California Supreme Court ruled that failure to warn doctors of ECT’s adverse effects undermines patient informed consent: patient autonomy requires full disclosure for valid consent.
See more: Wisner & Baum ECT Injury Resource
Research on ECT Harms
Multiple studies show permanent neurological injury, memory loss, and cognitive decline after ECT:
Friedberg 1977 — Neurological evidence of brain damage and lasting memory loss after ECT.
Mathiassen 2025 — Meta-analysis shows irreversible autobiographical memory impairment.
Tørring 2017 — Systematic review confirms mortality risk directly linked to ECT.
Duma 2019 — Evidence of major cardiac complications and deaths following ECT.
Global Human Rights Condemnation (2013–2025)
International organizations have repeatedly condemned forced ECT as a human rights violation:
2013 – UN Rapporteur on Torture: Forced ECT = Torture (A/HRC/22/53 PDF)
2018 – UN HRC reaffirms ban on all forced psychiatric interventions (A/HRC/39/36 PDF)
2020 – World Psychiatric Association: Addresses coercion in psychiatry (WPA Statement)
2021 – WHO Guidelines: Abolition of involuntary treatment (WHO Report)
2023 – WHO & OHCHR Joint Guidance: Prohibit all coercive practices (Joint Guidance)
2024 – NZ Royal Commission: Exposed forced electroshock use on children; recommends criminal investigations (Summary)
2025 – WHO Strategic Modules 1–4: Shift to voluntary, rights-based care (WHO Guidance)
News & Media
"Life After ECT" Series: Long-Term Effects, Survivor Stories, Deaths Memorial
The Independent (UK): “MPs Call for Ban on Electric Shocks…” – March 11, 2023
What Needs to Change?
Revoke the FDA’s 2018 reclassification of ECT devices and immediately restore them to Class III status, requiring full pre-market approval submissions.
Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal reimbursement programs for ECT.
Hold public hearings for victims injured by ECT with the goal of providing restitution.
Launch an investigation into the regulatory and financial processes that enabled ECT to bypass safety protocols and obscure potential conflicts of interest influencing the FDA.
Ban the use of ECT through federal legislation based on scientific and judicial evidence of harm, “unreasonable and substantial risk,” and paucity of evidence of efficacy.