New Research Challenges ECT Safety Claims, Intensifying Calls for Ban

A forthcoming University of Houston study is challenging the core electrical theory that psychiatrists have used for decades to claim electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is safe. The research, which will be presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, suggests that the 'shunting theory'—which holds that the scalp harmlessly redirects 90-95% of the electric current away from the brain—is fundamentally flawed. Instead, the study's high-resolution 3D model of the head indicates that 82.5% of the current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brain, with only 1.5% passing through the scalp. This finding has significant implications for the estimated 100,000 Americans who undergo ECT each year and for the regulatory status of the devices used.

The study's findings are detailed in a paper by Kenneth Castleman, titled 'Electric Current Density Distribution During Electroconvulsive Therapy,' published in the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium proceedings. The research contradicts the long-held assumption that the brain is protected from the electrical current. Instead, it suggests that the CSF acts as a major pathway, distributing current throughout the brain. This raises concerns about potential brain damage from both heating and electroporation—a process where high voltage creates pores in cell membranes, overwhelming the brain's repair mechanisms and leading to cell death.

Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, has compared the effects of ECT to a closed-head injury, noting documented changes in the brain similar to traumatic brain injury. These new findings add to a growing body of evidence that ECT may not be as safe as previously claimed, prompting the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) to renew its calls for a ban on the procedure. CCHR, which has long campaigned against coercive psychiatric practices, points to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices. Under federal law, the FDA has the authority to ban any device that poses an 'unreasonable and substantial risk' of injury, and CCHR argues that ECT devices meet this threshold.

The implications of this research are far-reaching. For patients, it underscores the potential risks of memory loss, cognitive deficits, and brain damage that have been reported by numerous survivors. For instance, Paris Jackson, who underwent nine ECT sessions, described severe head pain and amnesia, while Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018, suffered long-term memory loss and difficulty forming new memories. These personal accounts, combined with the new scientific evidence, call into question the safety and efficacy of a procedure that has been used for over 80 years without rigorous long-term safety data.

Globally, there is a growing movement to restrict or ban ECT, particularly for minors. The World Health Organization declared in 2005 that there are no indications for ECT on minors and recommended it be prohibited through legislation. Several jurisdictions, including Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and most recently Ireland, have enacted such bans. In the U.S., CCHR helped secure the first bans on electroshock for minors in California (1976) and Texas (1993), but the practice continues in many states, sometimes on children as young as five.

Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, who herself received ECT as a teenager, emphasizes the need for regulatory action: 'Electroshock devices meet the FDA threshold, which need to be revisited. Decades of research document brain damage, memory loss, cognitive deficits, and mortality, while regulators have never required evidence of long-term safety or effectiveness.' CCHR, established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz, has been a vocal critic of coercive mental health practices and has testified before international bodies about the harms of ECT. The new research provides scientific backing to these concerns, strengthening the case for a ban on what many consider a barbaric procedure.