I decided to hold on writing anything about the following topic until I had some clearance from “the source,” in which case I actually got one. Therefore, I am now going to proceed with writing about the state of the sine-wave machine, which was used on me in the last three treatments, numbers 13-15.
First, let me explain why there was what I thought could be an issue. In the process of receiving my treatments, I was always made aware of the position of the electrodes prior to every ECT. The initial stimuli were delivered via unilateral electrode placement, where the two flat electrodes are applied to one temple and the back of the head on the same side. As we moved on, the doctors switched to bilateral ECT, where the electrodes were placed to both temples (Fink, Electroshock: Healing Mental Illness, 1999). In the last three treatments when I began to receive the sine-wave stimulus from that Samsonite machine, my curiosity about that “Samsonite machine treatment” took me to google, and the search engine began to turn up numerous position statements and other sources that now recognized the sine-wave treatment as unnecessary and not recommended. In some cases, these critics saw this method as simply too cognitively damaging. One such position paper has been published by the Canadian Psychiatric Association I will post links to other position papers soon. In “The Cognitive Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Community Settings” published in Neuropsychopharmacology (2007), Harold A. Sackeim, et. al. also point out the noticeably “more severe and persistent deficits” caused by sine wave and bilateral electrode placements.
I personally felt the need to make sure that it was okay with my doctor before I can vent online about this part of my treatment. To my slight surprise, Dr. J. was more than willing to speak with me about it. In fact, he was happy that I chose to discuss this matter with him first, and that he told me to go ahead and post the contents of our conversation online.
I must be clear that I did not necessarily feel hesitant about receiving this treatment to my head. My reluctance to write about the sine-wave rose later because I detected a potential ethical and legal dilemma, one that could get my doctor in trouble if this journal is utilized as a legitimate document that identified who still used the sine-wave method against the general medical community’s consensus. Dr. J. eased my discomfort by explaining that, had he decided to just “go home” after my twelfth treatment simply because the general guideline made him feel obligated to do so, it would have meant that practically the entire four weeks’ of ECT would have, well, made little difference for me. I imagine that I would have come out a bitter person for it, because though the procedure itself is not that bad, it takes an enormous emotional toll not just on me but especially on those who had to constantly care for me.
Dr. J.’s main point was that, what would be accomplished if I am not given the benefits of being not depressed simply because the scientific community wasn’t comfortable with the potential of a risk by a certain machine? He just didn’t feel that it wouldn’t be fair to me to have to be depressed for a lifetime and never know whether a different stimulus would have made that key, lifesaving difference. Apparently this opinion is prevalent among the ten psychiatrists who are currently administering ECT at the Parthenon Pavilion; they share the machine with each other.
More to come on this matter, but just wanted to get this much out at this point.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.