By systematically targeting electroconvulsive therapy as part of its war on psychiatry, experts say Scientology could decimate a treatment that is “saving so many lives.”
…
The Atlantic’s 2001 article explained that ECT [Electroconvulsive therapy] had emerged from a terrifying past to become a safe and effective treatment for some of the worst effects of serious mental illnesses. But Scientology, through its campaigns and by pushing legislation, was promoting outdated myths about the procedure for a public that knew little about it.
Miscavige’s November 3 speech illustrated that Scientology is still pushing this agenda more than 20 years later—but with one big difference.
While Scientology has continued to campaign against ECT on various fronts, it has pursued a little known but very effective strategy against ECT’s most vulnerable spot: Namely, the two small companies that manufacture the devices that physicians use during the procedure.
For decades, Scientology has quietly waged a litigation war against those two companies, SigmaStim and Somatics, and it has both nearly on the ropes.
Scientology knows that if the two companies go out of business, federal regulations mandate that doctors will no longer be able to use their devices, and ECT will become unavailable in this country and around the world.
Those medical providers say that ECT is a safe procedure that is saving lives every day, and they are extremely concerned that it is nearly on the brink of disappearing—and only because of the relentless attacks of Scientology on the device manufacturers, a war that has flown completely under the radar until now.
Unless you have a medical license or a PhD what you typed holds absolutely zero weight. It’s the equivalent of saying all surgery is bad because a surgeon left a sponge inside my grandma
I think I was petty clear it’s an anecdote. There’s not very much to discuss here other than us nodding our heads in agreement that Scientology is bad. This is a discussion board. I discussed.
It’s anecdotal. There are mountains of data and studies now. Still amazes me that people still argue “Oh, well X is bad because I know 1 person who had a bad experience”
I’m definitely not saying it’s bad. There are tons of possible reasons to explain my experience besides ECT bad.
“I’m pretty iffy on ECT”
“Doctors should’ve loaded her up with pills instead of ECT in her case”
Sounds like you don’t see the merits in ECT, which is perfectly fine. I just disagree with your methods of reasoning used to support this conclusion.
We’re on Lemmy, not a scientific publication… Nothing typed on here holds any weight