Electroconvulsive Therapy Essay Example for Free

Electroconvulsive Therapy EssayChapter 578 of the 14th Edition Texas Laws Relating to affable wellness and Mental Retardation discusses in length the circumstances in which application of the electroconvulsive therapy is allowed, or possible. In the United States, electroconvulsive therapy or ECT as it is comm solo called is generally practiced only for the treatment of thoroughgoing(a) natural depression. And treatment may only be applied with expressed accept of the patient. Under no early(a) circumstance can ECT be used other than what is prescribed.The Texas Law qualifies this expressed consent understanding by outlining the types of patients who may stick out such consent. It be military positions identifies which patients who ar non eligible for such treatment at any given circumstance. The fair play further provides a thorough detailing of what this consent should include. The consent must releasely be communicated to the patient and the following supportd u pon the nature and purpose of the procedure the degree, period and probable side effectuate opinions of efficacy of the procedure probable improvement or remission expectations (www. heuniversityhospital. com). that the presences of all these four (4) important points hold constitute the validity of the consent agreement to ECT. federal official Health Laws of the United States leave the ratified obligation for accomplishment of this consent agreement to the doctors. It is the doctors who guarantee the awareness of patients to the requirements of the agreement. historic Background of the insurance insurance Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) or sometimes referred to as electric shock treatment (Hollander, 2000) has been in earth for over 60 years in the health check field.The use of this procedure however and the conditions skirt the motif for this treatment has improved in recent years. The procedure is used more(prenominal) for the treatment of serious depression (Hollande r, 2000) but may also be considered as treatment for schizophrenia and other similar disorders. The beginning use of this procedure was in 1938 (The University Hospital, 2007) by the Italian Neurologist Ugo Cerletti, aptly aided by his athletic supporter Lucio Bini. They used the electric shock to induce convulsion and subsequently treat mood disorders.However it was only in the 1970s in which ECT became accepted and was finally recognized by the APA and NIMH as a viable therapeutic procedure. Even with the recognition by the APA and NIMH as having important medical value, on that point are a number of concerns surrounding the procedure. In fact, ECT is one of the most exceedingly debatable medical procedures around. One of the biggest concerns is with regards to unrecoverable memory loss (Stevens, 2007) after treatment. This is the reason why the authorities insurance policy on ECT primarily focuses on the agreement of the patient to the procedure before changeing such.Descrip tion of the Problem that Necessitated the Policy One of the biggest concerns with regards to the use of ECT as a medical treatment is its suitability for minors. For over 40 years the treatment was intentional for adults who suffer mental disorders, particularly severe depression. The growing number of minors with similar disorders and because of unsubstantiated side-effects of the procedure prompted the design of the policy. Minors (Baldwin and Jones, 1998) need to be specifically identified as a no-treatment zone in this area. Description of the PolicyPolicies harnessing the use of electroconvulsive therapy as a reliable medical procedure for mental disorders, specifically for the treatment of severe depression are designed to hold dear the patient. The Texas Law on this particular issue is the most popular reference to identify the implementing guidelines of ECT. The policy aims to specify the circumstances surrounding the use of ECT. The requirements are absolute and expli cit. It assures safety and protection of the patient and the doctor. As a whole the policy addresses the implementing disbeliefs that surround ECT.The pre-treatment requirements are clearly stated and easily understood. at that place is no instruction around the points of consideration, thus, proving to be well-established. However, the issue on ECT is non necessarily about the policy governing the treatment. Controversy (www. antipsychiatry. org) is focused on the viability of the treatment itself, which unfortunately, is not addressed by the policy. In fact umpteen organization constantly fight against the use of the procedure even for severe depression, as it is commonly applied. The question on electroconvulsive therapy is more on its effectiveness as a medical procedure.Although on that point are a good number of documented successes of ECT, in that respect also are a good number of disputes raised. Since the living policy governing ECT focuses on its implementing guide lines, umteen disputes are not addressed. Comparative and International abstract In March 2006, the United Kingdom made a bold move to revise (Ruthen, 2006) their brisk policy on electroconvulsive therapy. The changes in the provisions include the strengthening of guideline to safeguard its practice (Ruthen, 2006). They also include the ethical considerations pertaining to safety and effectiveness.Through these provisions, the policy became more comprehensive. It increased the level of safety and pledge for those which the particular policy is designed. In contrast, the Texas Law as earlier discussed does not provide a clear stand on its effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. Without dealing with the ethical considerations of the procedure, the law merely provides a procedural guideline for implementation. The law neither provides basis for authorities action apart from its role on instrumentation. Social Thought and political theory There are 2 very contrasting companionabl e notions on ECT.The first is that electroconvulsive therapy is a highly effective medical procedure for mental disorders. It is safe and effective more particularly for the treatment of severe depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This view highlights the credibility of the procedure and supports the existing policies for its implementation. In both(prenominal) the US Federal and Texas Laws, legal accountability is placed with the patient and the doctor. Because of substantiated success of the treatment over the course of more than 60 years, the policy is designed to provide implementing guidelines to safeguard its uses.In fact, the US Federal Law specifically states that it is the legal responsibility of the doctor to clarify all pre-treatment requirements with the patient. In no instance does politics interfere with the process. medical decisions in this case are left between the two parties involved. The strongest evidence of Government involvement in the policy lie s on the registration of equipment used in the procedure. On the other hand, the second school of thought questions the very validity of the procedure as a humane alternative to treat mental disorders. many an(prenominal) counterpoints are raised more precisely when it comes to its ethical considerations. This point of view questions the very role of Government in safeguarding the use of this procedure. The existing policy simply does not justify the existence of unsubstantiated side effects, most particularly that of memory loss after treatment. Those who support this view believe that in the more than 60 year history of ECT, there are still so many unanswered concerns surrounding the procedure. Considering this like any other medical solution simply reduces the opportunity to scrutinize the side effects more in-depth.However contradicting the two schools of thought in this matter, there are still points both agree upon. One of these points and probably the most important is that b oth sides acknowledge the unsuitability of the procedure for minors. The policy was designed to make sure that the protection of minors from this procedure is absolute, not withstanding the otherwise underlying differences in the two schools of thoughts. What Dynamics and Patterns of US Social Policy are Evident in the Policy? Historically (Amenta, Bonastia, and Caren, 2001) the US Social Policy has always been the subjected of much heated debates among policy makers.The major areas that cause quite a stir are in health care, well-being, societal services, and employment. There have been many attempts to revise social policies but have failed. In other words, patterns and dynamics of social policies have remained constant for many years. The longstanding debates on social policies (Weir, Orloff, and Skocpol, 1988) affect the progression of other policies. One such policy is that which addresses the mental health care, more specifically the use of electroconvulsive therapy in treat ing mental disorders.In as much as the social policies go through quite a scrutiny, provisions that deal with ECT are equally scrutinized. The laws that govern the use of ECT do not even state the relevance of this procedure to social welfare or any other social policy. Even though ECT is recognized as a legitimate means to treat mental disorder, there remains indifference on how far Government would go to subsidize this procedure. Conclusion Electroconvulsive therapy is a recognized treatment procedure for mental disorders by both the American Psychological Association and the National Institute of Mental Health.Its more than 60 year thwart record documents numerous success. In fact, it has gained even greater momentum in recent times. While there is much acclaim for the procedure, there is also much concern. The questions on side effects have not been thoroughly addressed. Policies that govern the procedure do not provide enough assurance of its safety and efficiency. There is a constant fear of other unknown side effects materializing. And with the brain being a highly susceptible mass, there is no guarantee to its long standing recovery effects. The Texas Law does provide a sense of comfort by somehow solidifying pre-treatment requirements.However, after all these requirements have been accomplished, there are no subsequent provisions that address the other important considerations. Apart from the weaknesses in policy there is the constant nagging of unanswered ethical considerations. Even with the numerous reassurances that the procedure is with expressed consent, there is still the question of how humanely applicable is the entire procedure. The policy simply puts accountability to the patient itself. It does not actually define the surrounding qualifications of the entire process.It is therefore inferred that the Texas Laws, although having the beginnings of a solid reference to protect those who undergo ECT still need a great deal of work. It does not matter if it has been the reference of many similar policies. There are important issues about ECT that are not properly addressed, or even considered. True, that with the present policies governing ECT it is always the patients choice. Never the less, it is the responsibility of policy makers to provide for informed choices. The human brain is far too important for simple assumptions.