Shock Therapy for Autism

Post Reply New Topic

The Atlantic: How ‘Shock Therapy’ Is Saving Some Children With Autism Electroconvulsive therapy is far more beneficial—and banal—than its torturous reputation suggests.

With the muscle relaxants that are available now the seizures caused by ECT are not harmful. If it works, why not? Surgery is just as invasive.

By "surgery" are you referring to a lobotomy? I think think those were made illegal decades ago.

Don't know if I have ASD or not but always thought that ECT would be the best treatment for me - no medical reason why I think it would work just a gut feeling

No, lol.
I mean any surgery. Heart surgery cuts you open; it's a case of enduring the bad for the proven benefits. And I think the same is true for EST.

I read the article and the choice is so obviously clear in favour for ECT for autistic children who would otherwise seriously injure themselves. The injuries alone far exceed any risks of short term memory loss or the risks associated with general anesthesia. The antipsychotics handed out like candy for every condition under the sun have a worse risk profile in many cases than general anesthesia or ECT.

The treatment should definitely be an option readily accessible to those who need it. I guess the problem with the stigma comes from the inability to discern that short term memory loss and the risks associated with general anesthesia are simply not equal to serious injury or death from suicide. I too have made this mistake possesing this flawed logic.

Surgery vs ECT is not a real choice, there is no surgery for Autism.

It is horrific that shock treatments are losing thier stigma and becoming mainstream again. We have too many surgeries in part because we can sadate and use painkillers. This has even more potential for abuse (or going back in part to the way it was) because it is quick and leaves no physical scars. Autism advocate Carly Fleischmann learned to communicate via computer at age 11. Because of OCD she decided she would take some sort of schock treatment. She lost the ability to communicate a year or so. She does not remember a thing about that period. A year gone from her life forever. Now she is back better than ever but the world could have lost her advocacy forever. Carly's decision was appearently made voluntary as an adult. These kids will not have a choice to not have a treatment that alters thier brain, the essence of who we are as people.

Less bad does not make something not bad. Just because it is convienent does not negate the potential negative effects, neither does the appearent desperation of the situation the led to the decision to shock thier kid.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 29 Oct 2016, 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

i was extremely shocked when i ran out of salt the other night while cooking dinner.

i thought i must have had a mild stroke because i always remember to buy stuff i need like salt.

so i went back to the shop and got some salt and then i was cured of autism!! !!

the shock knocked me into another state of neuronal consciousness.

whatever this post was not serious

if ECT works, then why not TCMS with less collateral damage?

Its an extreme measure used (as the article says) as a last resort for extreme cases.

Cases like the child in the article who would self harm himself to death in short order otherwise.

Dont see how it applies to 99 percent of everyone else on the spectrum.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 29 Oct 2016, 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

What is "ECT"?

Did you mean "EST" (electroshock therapy)?

And what is TCMS?

i agree.


I present surgery as an invasive action that is harmful, but has benefits.


It's not the same procedure as it used to be.


Your example of Carly Fleischmann is not a good one as her case is blurry. Personally I think her father is abusive to her. But that's another issue.


I have to disagree. First, I think the article mentioned that the procedure is not used on children. The person in the article is a teenager and made his own decision. Second, I don't think it is a matter or convenience as much as desperation for something that helps.


Did you make this statistic up? I'm not sure how you can know how effective it is in the autistic population.

Am not talking about "effectiveness". I was talking about risk/benefit. This one article is not enough to make me warm up to the idea of shock treatment. The kid in the story is severely autistic, they already tried everything else, and his particular expression of autism presented a clear and present danger to his life and health (because of he would attack his own body). Severity, lack of other options, and urgent danger. That combination made it logical for them to roll the dice on shock therapy. But most of the rest of us don't have that unique combination of factors. So no cure at all is better than taking a chance on shock therapy IMHO.

It is convenient compared to the trail and error of finding out what sensory sensitivities are triggering the violent reactions.

Agreed that because it ain't what it is used is the reason why it is losing its stigma, that does not make it right or change what it is, messing with peoples brains.

Now it is appearently voluntary and controlled. I have little faith it is going to stay that way, especially because it is an autism treatment (among other things). You always need to worry about abuse and slippery slope scenarios with any new thing. Yet you can not let fear step in the way of progress. But with autism desperation always seems to drive decisions. It is well understood that many if not most parents go trough grief when thier child is diagnosed with autism. On the extreme end you have all of the quack cures. I google "autism" every 24 hours or so and what comes up nearly everyday is the media and scientists getting all excited about a study involving less then 100 subjects. I post some of them. With almost any other condition this type of study would be rightly regarded as extremely preliminary. So yes, I am extremely cynical about touted autism treatments and expect a slippery slope scenario unless proven otherwise.

A bit off topic but about Carly. I did write appearently because we really do not know what happened. But I find it annoying that people yell "nothing about us without us" until a decision goes wrong, then they make the ableist assumption it must have been her father, that he planted the idea in her head, that she as an adult did not make a bad decision on her own. There is no evidence the decision was not hers. I do understand OCD can make one desperate, I have a relative that has OCD that came with suicide ideation. Could not sleep at night, missed many days of school. Thankfully her and Carly are better now.

Again, where are you getting this information from. I'm not sure how "the rest of us" is being determined.


I don't know if it was or not, but there is something odd about her father's treatment of her. I saw the video he made about her going to a cafe and freaking out. It was offensive and disturbing.

Can you cut out the comedy please.

Autistics vary in their level of autism, and in how they present autism. But ones who are so into self destruction that threaten their own lives are a small number. I never see anyone on WP talk about it (some talk about cutting, but that's both different, and its an issue among NTs as well as autistics). Have heard about autism in the media since the mid Sixties, but I never heard of a kid that extreme in being into self attack.

So its safe to say that only a vanishingly small number of autistics have the urgent need to turn the switch off on their behavior the way that kid needed it.

Its up to you to show stats to prove me wrong. Not for me to justify saying "99 percent" off the top of my head to mean "a tiny proportion". Its obviously only a tiny proportion.

This is all just bluster and defensiveness. And I'd prefer to avoid a statistics war as they are silly and unproductive. I'm not sure why you think I would go on a hunt to do your work for you. You brought it up.
What I really wonder about is why you are trying to argue that a large proportion of autistic people do not need shock therapy. There's no way either of us can know. I think we agree that those who do need it should have it. So we are arguing about the severity of autism in the community. And I don't know why.