Families Speak Out on the Harms of ECT: A Call for Reassessment

A recently published study sheds light on the experiences of family members and friends regarding Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), revealing widespread concerns about its negative impacts. The research indicates that a significant number of respondents witnessed a diminished quality of life in their loved ones post-ECT, alongside persistent issues with memory and cognition. Contrary to the intended therapeutic effects, many reported no improvement in symptoms, and some even observed a worsening condition. This comprehensive study underscores the need for a critical re-evaluation of ECT practices, particularly concerning patient well-being and the process of informed consent.

The Impact of Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Closer Look at Family Perspectives

In a groundbreaking article featured in Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, led by independent scholar Christopher Harrop and co-authored by Dr. John Read from the University of East London, compelling findings emerged from a global survey concerning Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). This study, conducted in 2026, gathered responses from 286 participants, predominantly from the United States (37%) and the United Kingdom (28%), who were friends or relatives of ECT recipients. The demographic data revealed that the majority of ECT recipients were white (89%) and female (68%), with daughters (19.4%), mothers (14.8%), and sisters (10.6%) being the most frequent respondents.

The survey's results painted a stark picture of the perceived harms of ECT. A staggering 60.1% of respondents reported that ECT was “not at all helpful,” while 80.9% believed it was harmful to some extent. Alarmingly, 42.4% indicated that the treated problems worsened, and 12.5% saw no change, meaning over half of the participants observed no improvement in their loved ones' symptoms. Furthermore, 61% noted a negative effect on their loved one's overall quality of life, compared to only 32.3% who saw improvement.

Memory loss was a dominant concern, with 60.7% reporting recent memory impairment and 73.3% experiencing issues with pre-ECT memories. Beyond memory, a wide array of adverse effects were frequently cited by over half of the respondents, including difficulty concentrating (79.1%), emotional blunting (72.6%), fatigue (73.3%), loss of independence (71.5%), relationship problems (70.2%), and difficulty with daily tasks such as driving, reading, and cooking. A troubling 34.2% suspected brain damage, and nearly half (47.7%) were unsure, while only 18.1% believed there was no brain damage.

The issue of consent was particularly contentious. While 47.1% stated their loved one consented voluntarily, 31.7% reported consent given under pressure, and 21.3% described the treatment as involuntary. This raises serious questions about ethical practices and patient autonomy within the mental health system. Participants expressed deep emotional distress, guilt, and a profound loss of faith in the medical community, with one family member describing the experience as 'terrifying' and another feeling they 'let her down' by not preventing the treatment.

The study acknowledges several limitations, such as potential recruitment bias due to the survey's distribution through channels critical of ECT, reliance on secondhand accounts and memory, and the exclusion of non-English speakers. Despite these, the consistent and overwhelming negative feedback from families provides a powerful argument against the current application of ECT.

This study serves as a poignant reminder that while medical interventions aim to alleviate suffering, their impact on patients and their families can be profoundly complex and, at times, devastating. The overwhelming reports of harm, particularly memory loss and decreased quality of life, alongside issues of consent, underscore an urgent need for greater transparency, more robust patient advocacy, and a re-evaluation of ECT's role in mental health treatment. It encourages the medical community to listen more attentively to the voices of those directly affected and to prioritize ethical considerations and holistic well-being over potentially harmful procedures. Moving forward, the mental health system must strive to offer treatments that truly heal, rather than inadvertently causing further suffering and despair.