Psychiatric Hospitals Fail to Warn Electroshock Patients of FDA-Cited Risks in Estimated $7 Billion Industry
The Californer/10350022

LOS ANGELES - Californer -- By CCHR International

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) International reviewed more than 50 psychiatric hospitals across 23 states that administer electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Their analysis found grossly inadequate risk information on their websites. None have updated materials to reflect the adverse effects the FDA required for mitigating risks in 2018. CCHR states that tens of thousands of Americans, including children, are not being warned about long-term memory loss and potential brain damage, warranting a government investigation and review of the need to ban ECT devices.

Thousands opposed the FDA's reclassification of ECT devices from high-risk Class III to lower-risk Class II for limited uses, with many calling for an outright ban. The FDA's 2018 final rule justified the change partly by requiring patient labeling to warn that "[t]he long-term safety and effectiveness of ECT treatment has not been demonstrated" and recommending formal neuropsychological assessments before and during treatment to monitor cognitive damage.[1] None of the facilities report this.

CCHR's review also shows the hospitals failed to warn of:

• Permanent memory loss (88%, 46 hospitals)
• Cardiovascular problems (69%, 36 hospitals)
• The right to refuse consent (88%, 46 hospitals)

Federal agencies bear much of ECT's costs, even though psychiatrists admit it cannot cure and often requires ongoing "maintenance" treatments. A private insurance analysis found ECT patients hospitalized 4 to 29 days longer than those receiving standard treatment, with additional healthcare costs of $5,700 to $52,700.

Psychiatrists who practice ECT often earn roughly twice the salary of other psychiatrists. ECT is estimated to be a $5.05 – $7.6 billion-a-year industry.[2]

More on The Californer

• California: Governor Newsom signs historic investments to bolster support for special education
• San Diego Author and Compassion Advocate Amy Quesenberry Celebrates Launch of Amazon Best Selling Book at AleSmith Brewing
• Florida Law Advisers, P.A. Named Best Divorce Firm of 2026 by Expert Law Attorneys
• Sramana Mitra Issues Warning on Cap Table Poisoning
• Daily Construction Logs Are Going Digital in 2026

ECT delivers up to 460 volts of electricity through the brain to induce a grand mal seizure, involving loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions (masked by anesthetics and muscle relaxants). Higher voltages used today have increased risks. Devices were grandfathered in 1976 without premarket approval or clinical trials proving safety and efficacy.

The FDA's 2018 Final Rule specified there is no clinical data supporting safety and efficacy for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or mania (which remain Class III). Despite this, 71% (37) of the hospitals promote ECT for schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorders—including the Department of Veterans Affairs—and 35% (18) promote it for mania. The FDA lists mania and worsening psychiatric symptoms as adverse effects.

Some also promote it off-label for autism, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and dementia, despite ECT's known memory loss effects.

Many hospital claims are misleading and unsubstantiated, including:

• "ECT is a minimally invasive treatment… like jump-starting a car battery" (A jump start typically uses 12 to 14 volts—ECT uses more than 30 times that.)
• ECT "turns the brain on and off just like a computer."
• ECT "can alter an individual's brain chemistry by releasing chemicals in the brain and encouraging the brain cells to make new connections."
• ECT is "no worse than going to the dentist."

The need for full informed consent regarding ECT has been upheld in courts, especially with a warning about potential brain damage.[3] Expert testimony before the Nebraska Supreme Court (2025) concluded that "ECT causes persistent or permanent memory loss and brain damage in a substantial proportion of recipients—somewhere between 12% and 55%," a finding which the court upheld.

Neuropathologists equate ECT's effects to traumatic brain injury, with victims suffering permanent cognitive impairment.[4]

The FDA erroneously believed that involuntary ECT is "uncommon" and always requires a judicial proceeding. In reality, state laws vary widely: six states have no ECT laws; many jurisdictions lack provisions for judicial oversight.[5] Only seven states require a court order for ECT on minors; 12 have no regulations for children.[6] Texas and California ban ECT on minors, due to CCHR's actions.

More on The Californer

• Restaurants Are Preventing Equipment Failures With AI Maintenance Scheduling in 2026
• Sounds of LA County: 27 Parks.108 Concerts. One County
• Bakersfield artist Devyn Brinsfield releases new album after Paramount+ song placements
• Only One Flight Stands Between Los Angeles Youth Leaders and a Life-Saving Mission in South Africa
• Feature Film The Singing Priest Announces Official Release and Global Rollout

Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International, received ECT in 1975 after a misdiagnosis of hyperthyroidism as depression. "After antidepressants worsened my condition, I was told I needed ECT, that it was the same as jump-starting the heart, and there were no major side effects. It was a lie. The claims comparing it to dental work, childbirth, or defibrillating the heart are fraudulent, and the practice should be banned." She has dedicated her life since 1977 to warning others of the dangers and the need for thorough medical examinations to rule out undiagnosed physical conditions.

Psychiatrist Niall McLaren advises patients that any psychiatrist who tells them "'You need ECT' is really only saying, 'I don't know what else to do.'" He is adamant: "No psychiatrist needs to use ECT."[7]

CCHR, which was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szasz, professor of psychiatry, calls for individuals damaged by ECT to report the abuse to it and encourages families and doctors to watch its documentary, Electroshock: Therapy or Torture.

Sources:

[1] "Neurological Devices; Reclassification of Electroconvulsive Therapy Devices; Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for Electroconvulsive Therapy Devices for Certain Specified Intended Uses," Food and Drug Administration, 26 Dec. 2018

[2] Anne Marie McKersie, "Effects of Funding on Electroconvulsive Therapy in California," Master's Thesis, San Diego State University, Spring 2011

[3] John Read, Ph.D., "Landmark Electroconvulsive Therapy Case Settled Out of Court," Psychology Today, 16 June 2026

[4] "Electroconvulsive Shock 'Therapy' (ECT) Lawsuit," Wisner Baum, www.wisnerbaum.com/defective-medical-device-injuries/ect/

[5] Victoria Harris, MD, MPH, "Electroconvulsive Therapy: Administrative Codes, Legislation, and Professional Recommendation," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & The Law, 4:406–11, 2006; Robin Livingston, et al., "Regulation of Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Systematic Review of US State Laws," National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2018

[6] Minju Hwang, et al., "Shock and Law: Unraveling State by State How and If ECT Can Be Offered for Psychiatric Conditions Occurring in Child and Adolescent Patients," Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Oct. 2024

[7] Niall McLaren, "No Psychiatrist Needs to Use ECT," Mad In America, 27 June 2017