To ECT or not to ECT

[Guest guest]

http://www.imt.ie/news/2010/12/what-it-says-in-the-papers-17.html

To ECT or not to ECT

“The continued use of ECT represents a failure to

introduce the ideals of evidence-based medicine into

psychiatry.”

Prof Bentall of the University of Bangor in Wales,

co-author of a new review of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),

insists the cost-benefit analysis for the treatment is so poor

that its use cannot be scientifically justified.

His colleague Dr Read of the University of Auckland went

further by stating that ECT should be “banished to the historical

rubbish bin of previous treatments thought to be effective in the

past, such as rotating chairs, surprise baths and lobotomies”.

[Guest guest]

http://www.imt.ie/news/2010/12/what-it-says-in-the-papers-17.html

To ECT or not to ECT

“The continued use of ECT represents a failure to

introduce the ideals of evidence-based medicine into

psychiatry.”

Prof Bentall of the University of Bangor in Wales,

co-author of a new review of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),

insists the cost-benefit analysis for the treatment is so poor

that its use cannot be scientifically justified.

His colleague Dr Read of the University of Auckland went

further by stating that ECT should be “banished to the historical

rubbish bin of previous treatments thought to be effective in the

past, such as rotating chairs, surprise baths and lobotomies”.

[Guest guest]

http://www.imt.ie/news/2010/12/what-it-says-in-the-papers-17.html

To ECT or not to ECT

“The continued use of ECT represents a failure to

introduce the ideals of evidence-based medicine into

psychiatry.”

Prof Bentall of the University of Bangor in Wales,

co-author of a new review of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),

insists the cost-benefit analysis for the treatment is so poor

that its use cannot be scientifically justified.

His colleague Dr Read of the University of Auckland went

further by stating that ECT should be “banished to the historical

rubbish bin of previous treatments thought to be effective in the

past, such as rotating chairs, surprise baths and lobotomies”.

[Guest guest]

http://www.imt.ie/news/2010/12/what-it-says-in-the-papers-17.html

To ECT or not to ECT

“The continued use of ECT represents a failure to

introduce the ideals of evidence-based medicine into

psychiatry.”

Prof Bentall of the University of Bangor in Wales,

co-author of a new review of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),

insists the cost-benefit analysis for the treatment is so poor

that its use cannot be scientifically justified.

His colleague Dr Read of the University of Auckland went

further by stating that ECT should be “banished to the historical

rubbish bin of previous treatments thought to be effective in the

past, such as rotating chairs, surprise baths and lobotomies”.