Banning ECT

panda100

Was reading in the paper today that controversial psychiatrist Dr Michael Corry is placing a bill in front of the Seanad this week aimed at the abolition of electroconvulsive (electroshock) therapy. His hope Is that ECT will be banned from the end of this year.That would make Ireland the first country in the world to ban this treatment.

Im just wondering what the health care proffesionals or indeed patients on here think about ECT?

Before I did my psych rotation I have to admit I was very wary of using electric shocks to treat patients with mental illnesses. I thought It was barbaric and inhumane and In some respects I still think it is. However, I did meet a few patients,particulaly manic patients, who seemed to have benefited from it.Im sitting on the fence at the mo about ECT so any insight would be much appreciated.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/400volt-shocks-applied-to-brain-for-wellbeing-1360448.html

tallaght01

I don't give ECT to my neonates, so I'm no expert on this.

BUt i thought people get it done under anaesthetic nowadays? And that it's quite effective.

beeno67

Many years ago while doing psych I used to give ECT. Patients who got it loved it. I thought beforehand that it would be barbaric. I thought patients had to be almost forced into it. Quite the opposite in fact. Patients were Q-ing up for it. Main problem was telling them ECT was not best option in their case. Seemed very effective but effects were short lived (weeks to months)

eth0_

It's been a while since I've read up on it, but I believe it's effective in <50% of cases, and even then it's only effective for a short period of time, and it causes memory problems. There are masses of people out there who have had horrifying ECT experiences and liken it to rape.

Personally I think it's just a step down from psychosurgery and I would hope it is either banned or severely limited.

Ireland really needs to get its house in order regarding mental health. I would be pretty terrified to end up in a psychiatric unit here. We aren't exactly the most progressive of nations in this area, although i'm sure that's partly due to massive under-funding.

sam34

as a psychiatrist, i can say that i think ect is the quickest and most effective treatment available for depression. i have seen it work extremely well for people. it is no longer the inhumane barbaric act portrayed in the likes of one flew over the cuckoos nest. it is given under a full general anaesthetic. yes, of course it has side effects, as does all medical treatment, and there are risks involved, as there are with all medical interventions.

psychiatry as a discipline is unfortunate as it can be headline grabbing, and there are always a vocal minority that will sensationalise their treatment. the general public probably have a perception of depression as a mild illness, feelinh unhappy or a bit pissed off. most people dont realise that depression, when severe, can be life threatening. in these cases, ect can be life-saving.

the best endorsement i can give ect is that if i needed it i would have it, and would feel confident about recommending it to any of my family.

Chunky Monkey

This guy seems to have appreciated it: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/189

Apart from that, I haven't heard much. Think Dorothy got in the second Wizard of Oz movie. Made it look very scary.

eth0_

sam34 wrote: »

as a psychiatrist, i can say that i think ect is the quickest and most effective treatment available for depression. i have seen it work extremely well for people.

If you believe a seizure induced state of euphoria is a cure for depression then sure.

The very fact that it only lasts for weeks or months and then service users have to return for another course of ECT would lead me to believe it's not such an amazing treatment after all.

Then there is the risk of cranial bleeds, cardiac arrest, memory impairment and physical brain damage (shown after autopsy). And then the inherent risk in having general anaesthesia for each ECT treatment!

We live in a society where people and doctors are all about the "quick fix" and seem happy to throw dangerous, toxic narcoleptic drugs and ECT at people and hope something sticks. What about using these treatments sparingly at the peak of depressive/manic/psychotic episodes and then using therapies like CBT and engaging in dialogue with "voices"?

One question i'd like your opinion on Sam, is whether you think ECT could be replaced in many/all cases with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation? From case studies i've read, it is often as effective as ECT and without causing physical damage to the brain.

Looby_Loo

I often am the recovery nurse when patients on my ward get ECT. Unfortunately it does have limited impact on some people but generally by the nature of their illness they are extremely treatment resistant anyway with depressive and suicidal symptoms so deeply entrenched in their psyche that even limited benefits are shortlived.
For the majority that I have seen, there are significant benefits in a relatively short period of time where medication has failed to make an impact

eth0_

Looks like the newspapers got it WRONG.
It's not to ban ECT outright. They want to amend the law so ECT can ONLY be administered if the patient gives written consent.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2008/3608/document1.htm

Looby_Loo

eth0_ wrote: »

Looks like the newspapers got it WRONG.
It's not to ban ECT outright. They want to amend the law so ECT can ONLY be administered if the patient gives written consent.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2008/3608/document1.htm

And if the patient is unable?

eth0_

Looby_Loo wrote: »

And if the patient is unable?

I'm not into politics but it looks like they want ECT to be available only to those who are able to consent to it. Because *technically* ECT isn't administered in life or death situations, it wouldn't fall under the same law which allows emergency intervention through surgery or drugs to safe someones life if they were unable to give consent.

jtsuited

i have had personal experience with this wacko, and I wont be returning.

edit: also i don't know if he is qualified as a psychiatrist. He is an M.D alright, but the only references i can see to him being a psychiatrist is that he is consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine (which is a load of codswollop when you see their website) here

Looby_Loo

But by the nature of mental illness your ability to consent is compromised so whats the alternative?

PaddyofNine

Yawn. Headline grabbing. ECT is a safe and effective treatment for depression the world over, and until drugs get more effective isn't going anywhere soon. FACT: It improves most patients symptoms. FACT: It's done under a general anaesthetic, so it's about as 'barbaric' as an appendicectomy. Even the headline in that stupid paper is sensationalist:

400-volt shocks applied to brain for 'well-being' (note the quotes). Psychiatrist leading campaign against use of 'archaic' electro-shock therapy in hospitals.

And yer man is hardly a 'leading doctor'.

He first witnessed ECT being administered ... St Brendan's Psychiatric Hospital in the Seventies, where the shock of what he saw caused him to faint.

Caused him to faint. Some stomach on that doctor!

His long-held belief is that mental distress is a valid human experience that doesn't emanate from a malfunctioning, diseased brain.

Riiiight. Intractable depression leading to self harm or suicide is normal.

He believes that abolishing ECT would allow a psychosocial, humanistic understanding of mental distress to emerge, paving the way for prevention and healing, and facilitating a person-centred approach, through counselling, cognitive therapy, and other techniques that are based on individual hearts and souls.

Eh, we do psychosocial multidisciplinary therapies every day with these patients. Sometimes it simply doesn't work. Hence, ECT.

Aside from the mental damage ECT causes, brain autopsies on patients have revealed physical damage. Some elderly people have died from strokes and pneumonia in the days and weeks following a course of ECT treatment, as they are known to do after any major trauma.

Yes, of course. Elderly patients dying from strokes or pneumonia while in hospital from long periods of time. Must be the damn ECT! (And if anyone can tell me how ECT causes Pneumonia, you get a medal). Then, of course it's time for the final headline grabbing soundbite.

"ECT is a holocaust of the brain, and a brutal final solution which must be stopped," he says. "The time to abolish electric shock treatment is now."

Gotta love the Indo!

eth0_

PaddyofNine wrote: »

FACT: It's done under a general anaesthetic, so it's about as 'barbaric' as an appendicectomy.

I don't see anyone here calling ECT procedures 'barbaric'...?

Please someone tell me what advances are being made in the field of psychiatry to replace ECT? Yes, it helps _some_ people for _a period of time_ but it is not a cure and there is no way any psychiatrist can deny that ECT causes damage to the brain that leads to cognitive and memory impairment.

This is hardly an ideal set of side effects.

If anyone can tell me if rTMS therapy is used in Ireland I would love to know...

Also, from what I have found on him tonight, Michael Corry is a real consultant psychiatrist, first appointed as a consultant in Clane general hospital. Perhaps he's stopped working in the HSE. As for the Irish institute of psychosocial medicine, I am dubious after seeing they recommend homeopathy... but personally I think approaching mental illness as a 'spiritual emergency' rather than treating it as merely a 'chemical imbalance' is valuable and effective.

ronbyrne2005

It is merely a medically induced grand mal seizure like in epilepsy. The brain/mind is amazingly complex and we have barely scratched surface. If someone is severly mentally ill(highly suicidal/hopeless all the time and drugs aint helping and ect does (even for a few weeks/months to help them psychologically) then great IMO. Risks of physical damage are overstated (please post journal/studies evidence otherwise). Corry and his wife have some wierd beliefs on mind, past lives etc. He actually does work in puclic service as a consultant contrary to previous posters statment. He will not accept that depression can occur from biochemical processes and is instead some nebulous emotional spiritual pehenomenon with no underlying physcial/electro chemical underpining.

eth0_

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

He will not accept that depression can occur from biochemical processes and is instead some nebulous emotional spiritual pehenomenon with no underlying physcial/electro chemical underpining.

Hmm i'd agree with that to a degree, however, he can't use that theory to explain genetic pre-disposition to mental illness, or illness brought on by substance abuse.

sportswear

etho where are you getting your information from!!!?

are you just making it up!!?!

It's been a while since I've read up on it, but I believe it's effective in <50% of cases

WRONG

Wechsler H, Grosser GH, Greenblatt M (1965) Research evaluating antidepressant medications on hospitalised mental patients: a survey of published reports during a 5 year period Journal of nervous and mental disease 141 231-9

72% effective in a systematic review of over 170 studies, over 6000 patients




patients are very carefully selected and must have exausted pharmacotherapeutic options

http://www.nice.org.uk/TA059

it is usually only used in LIFE THREATENING situations. Would you deny a patient a potentially very effective treatment, based on an unpleasant side effect profile if the patients life is under threat from almost certain suicide??

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/59ecta4summary.pdf

the vast majority of patients are glad they have received ECT

-Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:967-97

and physical brain damage (shown after autopsy)

WRONG!!! - back this up! ! if you are going to make sweeping statements like this then your going to have to show where you got the information from!


Serum markers of brain-cell damage and C-reactive protein are unaffected by electroconvulsive therapy.World J Biol Psychiatry. 2007 May 8:1-5.

No evident neuronal damage after electroconvulsive therapy.
Psychiatry Res. 2000 Oct 30;96(2):157-65.

If you believe a seizure induced state of euphoria is a cure for depression then sure

What ? Do you not take the point that Sam is a psychiatrist and therefore knows a lot more about this than you do ? Who said its a state of Euphoria?


Have you ever met a patient who had had ECT? Hve you ever seen ECT ? Have you ever been in a psychiatric hospital?

I think most of your info is coming from non peer reviewed information on the internet. Read some journal articles on the subject. If ECT is banned it will leave many people without an option that has a great potential to cure.

PaddyofNine

eth0_ wrote: »

I don't see anyone here calling ECT procedures 'barbaric'...?

Sure he did. Reread the article, seventh paragraph.

Yes, it helps _some_ people for _a period of time_ but it is not a cure and there is no way any psychiatrist can deny that ECT causes damage to the brain that leads to cognitive and memory impairment.

Of course it's not a cure. There is no cure, that's the problem. And any medical intervention - any one, from aspirin to a heart transplant - has negative side effects. It's a risk-v-benefit decision.

This is hardly an ideal set of side effects.

The ideal set of side effects is NO side effects.

If anyone can tell me if rTMS therapy is used in Ireland I would love to know...

Maybe in a research setting. Check the NICE guidelines, which states that there is no clear cut clinical efficacy proven for rTMS. Yet. But it's still in the experimental stage. Prof. Declan McLaughlin in TCD has done some work in this field, and found ECT superior in a comparison of the two.

but personally I think approaching mental illness as a 'spiritual emergency' rather than treating it as merely a 'chemical imbalance' is valuable and effective.

Hahaha. Funniest thing I've read all day. Are you for real? A spiritual emergency? Depression?! Right. And if you get hit by a bus on the way to your Reiki clinic, I'll sit down beside you and mutter a few hymns, maybe rattle out a verse of Kumbaya. That'll fix ya! :D

eth0_

PaddyofNine wrote: »

Hahaha. Funniest thing I've read all day. Are you for real? A spiritual emergency? Depression?! Right. And if you get hit by a bus on the way to your Reiki clinic, I'll sit down beside you and mutter a few hymns, maybe rattle out a verse of Kumbaya. That'll fix ya! :D

You're laughing at me for becoming close-minded to the "normal" methods used by psychiatry? :rolleyes: FYI I wasn't talking about bull**** therapies like reiki and homeopathy. I'm interested in CBT and voice dialogue therapies.

I actually have two friends with diagnoses of schizophrenia. One of them was in and out of hospital for 8 years and had many courses of ECT. Medication and ECT made them feel euphoric for a period, but then they felt even worse, or at best made them feel empty inside and incapable of feeling real happiness (which is understandable when you look at how anti-psychotic medications work). Both of them have been off medication and out of hospital for years and manage by seeing therapists and dealing with their illness spiritually. Unless they revealed to you that they have occasional periods of voice hearing (usually when they've been under a lot of stress), there is no way you would know they had been diagnosed schizophrenic.

sportswear

FYI I wasn't talking about bull**** therapies like reiki and homeopathy. I'm interested in CBT and voice dialogue therapies.

both very worthwhile and effective treatments but they aren't spiritual, they are psychotherapeutic.

tallaght01

sportswear wrote: »

Serum markers of brain-cell damage and C-reactive protein are unaffected by electroconvulsive therapy.World J Biol Psychiatry. 2007 May 8:1-5.

No evident neuronal damage after electroconvulsive therapy.
Psychiatry Res. 2000 Oct 30;96(2):157-65.

I've often wondered does ECT do any damage? Whether any potential damage outweighs the benefits is another issue.

But are serum markers a good indicator of brain damage? has anyone done any MRi studies on post-ECT patients?

I still fall down on the side of thinking that ECT is probably an effective therapy in certain groups. But I'd be interested in knowing more about it's long term effects ont he brain.

sam34

eth0_ wrote: »

If you believe a seizure induced state of euphoria is a cure for depression then sure.

The very fact that it only lasts for weeks or months and then service users have to return for another course of ECT would lead me to believe it's not such an amazing treatment after all.

Then there is the risk of cranial bleeds, cardiac arrest, memory impairment and physical brain damage (shown after autopsy). And then the inherent risk in having general anaesthesia for each ECT treatment!

We live in a society where people and doctors are all about the "quick fix" and seem happy to throw dangerous, toxic narcoleptic drugs and ECT at people and hope something sticks. What about using these treatments sparingly at the peak of depressive/manic/psychotic episodes and then using therapies like CBT and engaging in dialogue with "voices"?

One question i'd like your opinion on Sam, is whether you think ECT could be replaced in many/all cases with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation? From case studies i've read, it is often as effective as ECT and without causing physical damage to the brain.

i never said ect was a "cure" for depression. it is not. it is a treatment. there is no cure for depression, by and large it is a recurrent illness, and people who are treated with meds still can have recurrent episodes, or need treatment changed/augmented/whatever. this does not make ect inferior to those treatments. there are lots of other areas in medicine where we dont have cures for things- hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy to name a few. yet you dont see people posting that insulin is a poor treatment because *shock, horror* sometimes people go into a diabetic coma or need their insulin changed/adjusted after a few months.


in my years in psychiatry i have seen many many people benefit enormously from ect. i have no doubt that in a lot of those cases it literally saved their lives, either by relieving active suicidal plans, or by improving their depression so that they start to eat and drink again, and thus do not die from electrolyte imbalances or renal failure.

so what if it's seizure induced? it's a controlled seizure, the patients are not thrashing about wildly on the bed, at risk of breaking limbs. i can think of a lot of medical procedures that are "worse" than a controlled seizure under general anaesthetic.

can you show me evidence based peer reviewed figures for your claims about brain damage etc

why should we wait for people to reach the "peak" of depression before offering them this treatment? how would you even define the peak of depression? a near miss suicide attempt? renal failure? muscle contractures from not havng left the bed in weeks/months? cbt has never been shown to be a superior treatment in severe depression. engaging in dialogue with voices has not been shown to be conclusively effective and is highly controversial. rufus may's recent documentary did nothing to advance his cause, in my opinion.

when you call psychiatric drugs "dangerous and toxic" you make a sweeping statement. all drugs have side-effects and inherent risks. if you take panadol for headaches, you could end up with a stomach ulcer. do people consider panadol to be "dangerous and toxic"? generally no (except in overdose). very easy to sensationalise psychiatric drugs.

re TMS, i have never seen a reliable study to prove its worth. case studies are anecdotal and not evidence based.

eth0_

Well it is known that epileptic seizures leave sufferers with cognitive impairments, and they can't always be explained by physical damage to the brain!

I would have thought this was an area that would be of great interest to researchers - it is more difficult to prove that seizures cause brain damage to epileptics because how do you prove that any damage is not the cause of the seizures rather than the effect? Surely it would be a bit easier to research using ECT patients.

sam34

eth0_ wrote: »

I actually have two friends with diagnoses of schizophrenia. One of them was in and out of hospital for 8 years and had many courses of ECT. Medication and ECT made them feel euphoric for a period, but then they felt even worse, or at best made them feel empty inside and incapable of feeling real happiness (which is understandable when you look at how anti-psychotic medications work). Both of them have been off medication and out of hospital for years and manage by seeing therapists and dealing with their illness spiritually. Unless they revealed to you that they have occasional periods of voice hearing (usually when they've been under a lot of stress), there is no way you would know they had been diagnosed schizophrenic.

and your point is? are you trying to generalise, based on the experience of two people, that ect doesnt work and "spiritual" treatment does? Riiight....


two of my family members had cancer. they were in and out of hospital, had chemo and surgery. they both died. does that mean that chemo and surgery dont work for cancer? of course not. nothing in medicine is 100% effective.

eth0_

No, that's not what i'm saying at all! If you read the previous post, I was asked if I knew anyone who had received ECT.
I'm not making a simple comparison between mental illness and physical illnesses like cancer which are understood in far greater depth by the medical community.

I'm just pointing out that it is possible for people to recover without invasive treatment. The whole point of my argument is that the medical community for lack of time, funds etc, don't seem too bothered for the patient to be a passive bystander in their own treatment.

I will admit that as a former service-user myself who was mis-diagnosed and given drugs that made me feel more messed up than depression and anxiety attacks ever did, I am rather biased toward psychiatry, but I am entitled to my opinion.

I find it depressing that people are so closed minded to non-traditional treatments.

sam34

eth0_ wrote: »

No, that's not what i'm saying at all! If you read the previous post, I was asked if I knew anyone who had received ECT.
I'm not making a simple comparison between mental illness and physical illnesses like cancer which are understood in far greater depth by the medical community.

I'm just pointing out that it is possible for people to recover without invasive treatment. The whole point of my argument is that the medical community for lack of time, funds etc, don't seem too bothered for the patient to be a passive bystander in their own treatment.

I will admit that as a former service-user myself who was mis-diagnosed and given drugs that made me feel more messed up than depression and anxiety attacks ever did, I am rather biased toward psychiatry, but I am entitled to my opinion.

I find it depressing that people are so closed minded to non-traditional treatments.

apologies that i misunderstood your point about your two friends.

however, i have yet to see or read about a treatment that is comparable to ect for severe depression. if i do, i would be open minded about it.

as regards your point about you being biased towards psychiatry... yes, i had gathered that

eth0_

sam34 wrote: »

apologies that i misunderstood your point about your two friends.

however, i have yet to see or read about a treatment that is comparable to ect for severe depression. if i do, i would be open minded about it.

as regards your point about you being biased towards psychiatry... yes, i had gathered that

No probs :-)
Yep, biased and hoping to get into a clinical psych course next year :P

PaddyofNine

eth0_ wrote: »

The whole point of my argument is that the medical community for lack of time, funds etc, don't seem too bothered for the patient to be a passive bystander in their own treatment.

But there's a rigorous process to get ECT for a patient. They have to be competent to consent, and I've quite often seen a patient refuse it day after day, and the team are powerless to do anything in such cases. Plus, it's only in extreme cases for example severe refractory depression, not responding to medication, that ECT may be used despite the patient declining it. In such cases it's only after long discussions with the family, and a second impartial consultant psychiatrist needs to agree that it's in the patients best interests. Again, it's a multidisciplinary decision and the team's OT, social worker and clinical psychologist will have input into the decision.

I'm just pointing out that it is possible for people to recover without invasive treatment.

For the record, ECT is a non-invasive therapy. Invasive treatments involved the insertion of medical devices into the body, for example cardiac cathetherisation or IV cannula insertion. It may seem invasive on a psychological level, granted.

I find it depressing that people are so closed minded to non-traditional treatments.

Nah, I'm not closed minded. Who would've thought 50 years ago that we'd be doing stuff like awake neurosurgery, or intra-uterine surgery on foetuses. I just like to see sound scientific evidence for a therapy before it comes into common practice.

jtsuited

Can I ask anyone here who is a psychiatrist, what actual training/qualifications (apart from med school obviously) must you get to call yourself a psychiatrist.

I'm open to correction on this, but i'm fairly sure (having had many experiences with corry) that he's just a bog-standard GP with crazy ideas about depression and a quasi-spiritual agenda to push.
It says he is consultant psychiatrist. But that is to some dodgy Institute for psychosocial medicine (i posted the link earlier). I would like to know if he actually did the proper training as a psychiatrist? because i'd be willing to put my money on the fact that he's not really a psychiatrist at all.

Oh and his job out in Clane, seems to be as a standard GP (I've been there to him many times).

eth0_

jtsuited - years of additional training and board exams to become a fellow of the royal college of psychiatrists.

According to medicalcouncil.ie Michael Corry is a qualified psychiatrist!


Registration Number 03649
Name DR Michael Mary Moore CORRY

Registration Date 01/07/1980

Primary Qualification
Abbreviation: MB BCh NUI
Description: Bachelor in Medicine and Bachelor in Surgery
University: National University of Ireland
Conferral Date: 01/07/1973
Additional Qualifications
Abbreviation: MRCPsych
Description: Member
University: Royal College of Psychiatrists
Conferral Date: 01/01/1981

jtsuited

thanks etho for clearing that up for me. still baffles me how someone can put so much work into becoming a psychiatrist only to become all new-agey and involve himself in absolute quackery.

eth0_

I see he has a psychosis meeting on Wednesday in Dun Laoghaire...won't be in the country for it but I would like to attend the next one in August to see what he's all about.

panda100

As someone with a keen intrest in psychiatry (its the only part of medicine I actully find intresting! ) I have to admit I am a big fan of Dr Corry. He really is a refreshing and progressive force in the pharmaceutical dominated profession that is psychiatry.

Dr corry seems to actually want to change pschiatry for the better. To make treatment less focused on quick fixes and more about personal growth and development. He looks at the wider picture of why mental illnesses such as depression are so rampant in our consumerist,non-stop society where people never stop to learn who they are,what they enjoy and what life means to them.
Psychiatry feeds into this by ignoring the real reasons why depression is so high due to our individulistic,vacous,superficial, society that leads young people to alcohol binges,self harm and suicide for escape routes, instead blaming everything on neurological chemical imbalances. But theres good financial reasons why depression levels are kept so high and the goverment do sod all to help the mental illness epidemic .With 13 of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies having operations in Ireland and 300 million euro spent on anti depressants annually there is defiantly a financial incentive to keep levels of depression sky rocketing and blaming mental illness soley on chemical imbalances.

During my psych rotation I was taught by two differnt consultant psychiatrists,one in Limerick and one in the Mater.Both actively used and applauded the use of ECT and both I felt were abominable doctors.
I saw patients, who to me, where just a bit eccentric but ultimatly harmless getting shock treatment. It feels like psychiatry is trying to make everyone the same so they can fit in the 'norm'.There is no scope for ecenticinty or individuality in modern day psychiatry/society.

eth0_

Here here.
panda you might like to check out Rufus May's blog (http://www.rufusmay.bdct.co.uk/)
He is a bit of a loose canon but he does appear to be doing some effective work. He'd hardly still be employed by the NHS if he was advocating dangerous therapies, after all.

jtsuited

eth0_ wrote: »

I don't really know enough about the guy to dismiss him as a 'quack' - do you?
.

I went to him as a patient a few times. Worst mistake I ever made. He took me off medication and tried to get me into his extraordinarily weird branch of spirituality etc.
Of course he plugged his book and website endlessly, lectured patronisingly on consumerism, war, religion, spiritual develepment ,etc.

I spent many months needlessly sick because of this doctor (not to mention his well above average fee), and just to give you an indication of the type of doctor he is, he was trying to get me to come to him for Reiki healing and all that jazz on a weekly basis.

His book (depression is an emotion not a disease) is based in pseudo-spirituality not science, and he seems to be out to push his own agenda.

ronbyrne2005

Of course "chemical imbalances" are not the cause of all depression. Most people have a different experience of depression anyway and theres no way of standardising the experience of all depression sufferers. The thing with corry is he seems to flatly rule out any biological/chemical cause of mental illness but offers little if any peer reviewed evidence to back up his own views. Why is it so hard to accept that some people are genetically predisposed to have defective mood systems in brain? and this is why some can respond so badly to enviromental stressors? Corrys' wife preaches about people haveing chakras despite seeming to be an intelligent medically trained GP. I presume he holds similar beleifs. I am open to anything in this world/universe but i need at least some statistically significant evidence to support any claims/beliefs or at least experience positive benefits myself from such treatments/approaches.

eth0_

jtsuited wrote: »

I spent many months needlessly sick because of this doctor (not to mention his well above average fee), and just to give you an indication of the type of doctor he is, he was trying to get me to come to him for Reiki healing and all that jazz on a weekly basis.

Hmmmm that is very dubious. Definitely going to go to one of his meetings now, I have to see/hear for myself.

I do subscribe to depression being an emotional reaction to stress and trauma in *some* people, but you cannot possibly apply that theory to every patient.

Just noticed you can watch Seanead Eireann live on the 'net here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/Web-Live.htm

Corry is presenting his proposal at 5pm tomorrow. I'll be tuning in.

jtsuited

More on topic.

I don't find it particularly surprising that someone like Corry would come out with this garbage and but am disgusted that a part of the media (yes I know it's the Indo) would give him a soapbox like this.

This guy is a crystals/reiki/homeopathy/reincarnation advocate with very little credible scientific data to justify any of his opinions.
He struck me as someone who is skeptical about many mental illnesses, dismissing diagnoses as some sort of exercise in conformity.

Now while I know there is quite a lot of overprescription of psychiatric drugs to patients who would do better with lifestyle changes, there are a huge number of people out there who suffer from serious mental illness who simply need chemical help.

IMO, Dr Corry has his own self interest at heart far more than the interest of patients, despite his concentrated effort to exhibit the opposite.

eth0_

If he is a "crystals/reiki/homeopathy/reincarnation advocate" then it's fscking outrageous that this would even get to the seanad.

There are so many other aspects of mental health in this country that need to be addressed, such as the ridiculously small amount of funding the service gets. And this guy is going to go in there and overshadow that with tales of homeopathy? Grrr. I can't wait for 5pm tomorrow.

jtsuited

eth0_ wrote: »

g an emotional reaction to stress and trauma in *some* people, but you cannot possibly apply that theory to every patient.

When you get down to the scientific nitty gritty of emotion, it's clearly a neurobiological phenomenon, and not one caused by past lives, chakra energies, heart conciousness, etc. as Corry would have you believe.

So even if chemical intervention (drugs) is not necessary for a person, it does not disprove the chemical basis of our minds.

There is a lot of bullsh1t out there about depression (I mean real clinical depression, not somebody feeling 'depressed'- one of the many symptoms needed for a diagnosis of clinical depression).

Oh yeah just thought of something else. I asked him once to recommend what food I should be eating and got an answer full of phrases like 'life-force foods', 'harmonised energy' and other nonsense.
I mention this just to give you a picture of the type that he is.

jtsuited

eth0_ wrote: »

If he is a "crystals/reiki/homeopathy/reincarnation nut" then it's fscking outrageous that this would even get to the seanad.

I can tell you truthfully that he is.

He performed shakra healing stuff on me as an alternative to medication, spoke about spiritual journeys more than about how I was, and a load of other stuff.

A few months after I had recovered I even considered taking a case against him, but didn't even know where to start.

Thanks to Corry, I experienced 3 months of complete mental and physical debilitation, and a load of other problems.
I can't speak lowly enough of this guy.

I don't think anyone in the medical profession takes him too seriously though. Judging by the look on a doctor's face when I said I had been to Dr Corry....

eth0_

I guess you'd contact the Irish Medical Council if you wanted to make a complaint.
Really sorry to hear about your experience. I hope it hasn't left you afraid to try other therapies in addition to your medication.
Really like your music btw!

panda100

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

The thing with corry is he seems to flatly rule out any biological/chemical cause of mental illness but offers little if any peer reviewed evidence to back up his own views. .

I admit that I definatly agree that antidepressants/antipschotics play a role and that there is a neurobiological basis for medication in psychiatric illnesses.

When Isaw Dr Corry give a talk I was turned off slightly by his complete disregard for any kind of pharmacological treatment in mental illness. In fact I challenged and critiscied him when he told the room that antidepressants have the same affect as a placebo affect i.e no affect. I think its important to have both psychological and pharmacological treatment when dealing with mental illness.

Back on topic: The more I read the more I cant help but think ECT should be severely restricted.As a scientist first and foremost I cant see how electricity will alter dopamine/serotonin levels in the brain. Does the volts kickstart your chemical secreting glands?? Id be wary giving a treatment with a lot of side effects which has no real scientific basis whatsoever. A quick scan of pubmed shows academics clearly divided on the matter, some saying it causes severe brain damage others not. However,even without a scientific study one cant help but think that sending electricity volts through someone isnt healthy.

sam34

panda100 wrote: »

During my psych rotation I was taught by two differnt consultant psychiatrists,one in Limerick and one in the Mater.Both actively used and applauded the use of ECT and both I felt were abominable doctors.
I saw patients, who to me, where just a bit eccentric but ultimatly harmless getting shock treatment. It feels like psychiatry is trying to make everyone the same so they can fit in the 'norm'.There is no scope for ecenticinty or individuality in modern day psychiatry/society.

it's amazingly arrogant of you to think that you, as a medical student, thought that you knew better than two consultant psychiatrists, about the diagnoses and management of their patients. now, granted, doctors are not infallible, but both those consultants have vast post graduate training and experience in psychiatry and know far better than students.
ect is never a treatment undertaken lightly, and certainly never given just to create conformity.

sam34

jtsuited wrote: »

Thanks to Corry, I experienced 3 months of complete mental and physical debilitation, and a load of other problems.
I can't speak lowly enough of this guy.

I don't think anyone in the medical profession takes him too seriously though. Judging by the look on a doctor's face when I said I had been to Dr Corry, I think he's just looked upon as the nut that he is.

i dont know of any psychiatrist that takes corry seriously,

i have seen more than one patient with major mental illnesses, who he took off medication, and who, like jtsuited, endured awful suffering as a result.

panda100

sam34 wrote: »

it's amazingly arrogant of you to think that you, as a medical student, thought that you knew better than two consultant psychiatrists, about the diagnoses and management of their patients. now, granted, doctors are not infallible, but both those consultants have vast post graduate training and experience in psychiatry and know far better than students.
ect is never a treatment undertaken lightly, and certainly never given just to create conformity.

Obviously I dont claim to know as much as a consultant so Im talking not just as a (lowly) medical student but as a compassionate human being. I just dont think its right to discharge a suicidal teen with only a reassuring pat on the back and a prescription for the antidepressant 'du jour'.I dont need ten years of postgraduate training in pscyhiatry to tell me this is not right.Yet this is what is happening in psychiatric wards up and down the country. I have yet to see a humanistic approach to patients where feelings/emotions are discussed more than medication and I think this is desperatly needed.

sam34

panda100 wrote: »

Obviously I dont claim to know as much as a consultant so Im talking not just as a (lowly) medical student but as a compassionate human being. I just dont think its right to discharge a suicidal teen with only a reassuring pat on the back and a prescription for the antidepressant 'du jour'.I dont need ten years of postgraduate training in pscyhiatry to tell me this is not right.Yet this is what is happening in psychiatric wards up and down the country. I have yet to see a humanistic approach to patients where feelings/emotions are discussed more than medication and I think this is desperatly needed.

you said in an earlier post that you saw "abominable doctors" giving ect to patients whom you felt were "just eccentric", thereby implying that you knew better than the doctors in that instance.

why do people have such a great problem with psychiatrists prescribing medication? that is what psychiatrists are supposed to do! we are doctors. the knowledge and qualifications necessary to prescribe are what psychiatrists bring to the multi-disciplinary team. we are not counsellers/psychologists/life-coaches/social workers/anything else.
why should psychiatrists have to do the work of psychologists thet, by and large, they are not trained to do, just because there is a shortage of psychologists in the country. thats like saying that as well as prescribing the necessary anti-hypertensives/statins etc, cardiologists should also be doing the work of dieticians (for eg) and cardiac education nurses (to name some others on the team). if there was a lack of dieticians would anyone be saying the cardiologists should shelve their prescribing and statr making out diet sheets etc?

eth0_

sam34 wrote: »

why should psychiatrists have to do the work of psychologists thet, by and large, they are not trained to do, just because there is a shortage of psychologists in the country.

I agree with you, but I don't see any visible protests to the government about it. There are always lots of psychologist jobs in the HSE, but there's a huge shortage of qualified people in Ireland. If the government and HSE would fund more postgraduate courses in clinical psychology, therapy etc, it would make such a difference to patients.

panda100 - i'm sure you've met lots of consultants of various firms who were absolute pr1cks, it's not exclusive to psychiatrists. You can't really make a snap judgement on the patients you observed either, you'd need to assess them for a substantial amount of time before deciding they were just "eccentric", I think.

JuliusCaesar

Here's a little biog of A Tubridy (didn't know she was Corry's wife?):
http://www.ibac.ie/images/SITECONTENT_85.pdf

Doesn't mention anything about her psychotherapy training.

Anyway, every profession has a few nuts.....

etho - CBT has a huge evidence base. Voice Dialogue doesn't.

panda100

sam34 wrote: »

you said in an earlier post that you saw "abominable doctors" giving ect to patients whom you felt were "just eccentric", thereby implying that you knew better than the doctors in that instance.

why do people have such a great problem with psychiatrists prescribing medication? that is what psychiatrists are supposed to do! we are doctors. the knowledge and qualifications necessary to prescribe are what psychiatrists bring to the multi-disciplinary team. we are not counsellers/psychologists/life-coaches/social workers/anything else.
why should psychiatrists have to do the work of psychologists thet, by and large, they are not trained to do, just because there is a shortage of psychologists in the country. thats like saying that as well as prescribing the necessary anti-hypertensives/statins etc, cardiologists should also be doing the work of dieticians (for eg) and cardiac education nurses (to name some others on the team). if there was a lack of dieticians would anyone be saying the cardiologists should shelve their prescribing and statr making out diet sheets etc?

I see your point,especially regards the cardilogy/nutrition comparison. I think I got a very bad view of psychiatrists during my rotation and I wouldnt want to generalise after only spending 6 weeks in psychiatry.
Il be tuning in at 5 anyways to see how things go down in the dail.