Landmark Decision: Jury awards $635,177 Damages for Memory Loss
VERACARE
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
www.ahrp.org
FYI
Below is a press release by Linda Andre, president of Committee for Truth
in Psychiatry (CTIP) about the first ever lawsuit in which a jury found a
psychiatrist who referred a patient for intensive electroshock procedures
(practitioners prefer to call it, electroconvulsive treatment ECT) that left
her permanently impaired. The patient, Peggy S. Salters is a 60 year old
former pshychiatric nurse. She was subjected to 13 electroshocks within the
span of 19 days. The defense expert psychiatrists--one who testified, the
other who was not called to testify but was deposed under oath--justified
the "treatment" and failure to inform the patient about the risks.
The jury found that her loss of 30 years of memory and cognitivie
impairment--which are demonstrable symptoms of brain damage--was due to ECT.
The reason that patients have been unable to convince a jury until now that
ECT-induced brain damage, is that the powerful psychiatric profession has
succeeded in manipulating the perception that the testimony of psychiatric
patients does not qualify.
Although the doctor who actually administered the electroshocks was not
found guilty, the referring psychiatrist was. This should send a warning to
physicians who refer patients for ECT without a thought about their own
liability, in the event of harm.
Many of you may not even be aware that each year, 100,000 patients in the US
undergo electroshock--many against their will.
There is concern among patient advocates that the tarnished reputation of
the antidepressants which have been scientifically proven not significantly
more effective for the treatment of depression than a sugar pill, that
psychiatry will attempt to rehabilitate ECT, a procedure that, to some
degree, causes brain damage. In the case of Peggy Salters--ECT wiped out a
lifetime of memory, including her 30 year marriage and the birth of her
children.
As this case demonstrates, the practice of ECT, like the irresponsible over
prescribing of psychotropic drugs, is dissociated from the body of evidence
confirming its harmful effects on cognitive function and memory for a
significant number of patients. ECT causes persistent cognitive impairments
and long-term memory loss in 25% - 30% of patients, while its efficacy in
relieving depression is admittedly short lived-about four weeks--at most,
six months of mood improvement.
ECT practitioners constitute the most zealous fraternity within the
psychiatric establishment: Max Fink, MD and Richard Abrams, Ph.D stated in
1998: "For over 50 years we clinicians have administered electro-convulsive
therapy with little to guide us in deciding whether or not a particular
induced seizure is an effective treatment." [1]
A confounding problem for psychiatry especially is the profession's failure
to examine its therapeutics from patients' perspectives--and psychiatry's
failure to put its therapeutic armamentarium to a meaningful scientifically
valid, unbiased test that would determine the risk / benefit--and,
therefore, the legitimacy of exposing patients to its interventions.
Current ECT promoters claim that the introduction of oxygen and anesthesia
made ECT safe: "nothing equal to it in efficacy or safety in all of
psychiatry." [3]
However, where memory loss and cognitive function are the issue,
practitioners' claims about the safety of "improved" ECT have not been
substantiated. Indeed recent UK studies and meta-analyses found no evidence
of reduced memory loss with current ECT methods:
"At least one-third of patients reported persistent memory loss. Levels
were between 29% and 79%." [4]
A meta-analysis published in The Lancet confirms the poor quality of ECT
clinical trials and validate ex-patients' complaints about cognitive
impairment:
"the limited randomized evidence on efficacy of ECT.does not prove a clear
quantitative estimate of the degree of short-term cognitive impairment
associated with present methods of ECT;" or "for how long it may persist
after symptomatic recovery." Most importantly, the authors confirm that:
"very little randomized evidence exists on the possible long-term cognitive
effects of ECT;" and "existing trials rarely use primary outcomes that
directly inform clinical practice and do not investigate what might
reasonably be considered good practice." [5]
ECT is dominated by medical cowboys who push the limits of intensity of
electric shock as they please. When questioned under oath, they acknowledge
no safety standards by which practitioners can be held accountable.
In his deposition (May 24, 2005) in Peggy Salters' case, Dr. Fink defended
the administration of 13 intensive ECT in 19 days which caused her permanent
memory loss stating:
"There are no absolute limits on the low side or to the high side if you're
going to give a patient a treatment... I have personally treated patients
twice a day.
And there was a time when I gave patients eight treatments in one sitting,
you know, on an experiment that we did many years ago.
So, yes, I have treated patients with eight seizures in a morning up to
eight. ...
It was called multiple monitored ECT. It was a government supported project
in an effort to find out if we can speed up the response." [2]
Just as psychiatry has justified aggressive prescribing of psychotropic
drugs by claiming they were "safe and effective," they have justified all
manner of brain damaging procedures--including lobotomies. ECT practitioners
justify any amount of electroshock by making unsubstantiated claims about
their safety and efficacy.
Like psychopharmacology, ECT is a lucrative business. Leonard Frank
outlined the economics of ECT succinctly in testimony :
"ECT is a money-maker. An in-hospital ECT series can cost anywhere from
$50,000-75,000. Using a low figure of 100,000 Americans who are
electroshocked annually, most of who are covered by private or government
insurance, ECT brings in $5 billion a year." ECT promoters are its
stakeholders-they include device manufacturers, hospitals and practitioners.
[6]
See: 1. Fink, M and Abrams, R. EEG Monitoring in ECT: A Guide to
Treatment Efficacy, Psych Times, May 1998, Vol. XV Issue 5 at:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p980570.html)
2. Deposition of Max Fink, MD, Hauppauge, NY, May 24, 2005, pp 40-41
in Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Richard County, South Carolina Case:
03-CP-40-4797
3. Max Fink quoted in Boodman, SG, Shock therapy: It's back, The
Washington Post, September 24 1996, Page Z14.
4. Rose D, Fleischmann P, Wykes T, Leese M, Bindman J: Patients'
perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review. British
Medical Journal: 326 (7403), 1363-1367, 2003, June 21.
5. UK ECT Review Group, Efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive
therapy in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The
Lancet 2003 (March 8); 361: 799-808.
6. Testimony of Leonard Roy Frank at a Public Hearing on
Electroconvulsive "TREATMENT" before the Mental Health Committee of the New
York State Assembly, 18 May 2001 at
http://www.stopshrinks.org/files/ny_hearing051801lfrank.htm
Coda:
Dr. Fink's website states that he is working on a book, History of
Convulsive Therapy, with two co-authors: "the Toronto (Canada) Professor of
History of Medicine, Edward Shorter and the Reader in Psychopharmacology
David Healy of Wales UK."
His choice of Edward Shorter as co-author is a no brainer. Professor
Shorter has already written the praises of ECT with glowing enhusiasm,
calling ECT "A treatment of proven safety and reliability." He has fully
endorsed Fink's position, and in a recent article in Psychiatric Times, "The
History of ECT: Unsolved Mysteries," Shorter bemoaned ECT's fall from grace
in the 1960s and 1970s, blaming its decline on the impact of One Flew Over
the Cukoo's Nest. Shorter suggests that the move away from using ECT as a
first-line treatment of depression in the 1940s and 1950s, when it was
relegated to "merely an approach to treatment-resistant depression in the
1990s" is a medical calamity: "It is as though penicillin had entered a
fallow period because of opposition from Christian Science."
But what, one wonders, is David Healy's role in co-authoring a book whose
objectivity is undermined by the conviction of two of its authors that ECT
should be applied much more widely.
Linda Andre is writing a critical history of ECT in which she examines the
scientific evidence that ECT practitioners fail to acknowledge or cite, and
she provides documented testimony of patients. She is looking for a
publisher.
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
vera...@ahrp.org
.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: First ever jury award for ECT amnesia
From: "Linda Andre" <ct...@erols.com>
Date: Thu, July 7, 2005 8:36 pm
A South Carolina woman has become the first survivor of
electroconvulsive therapy (ECT, shock treatment) to win a jury verdict and a
large money judgment in compensation for extensive permanent amnesia and
cognitive disability caused by the procedure.
Peggy S. Salters, 60, sued Palmetto Baptist Medical Center in Columbia,
as well as the three doctors responsible for her care. As the result of an
intensive course of outpatient ECT in 2000, she lost all memories of the
past 30 years of her life, including all memories of her husband of three
decades, now deceased, and the births of her three children. Ms. Salters
held a Masters of Science in nursing and had a long career as a psychiatric
nurse, but lost her knowledge of nursing skills and was unable to return to
work after ECT.
The jury awarded her $635,177 in compensation for her inability to
work. The malpractice verdict was against the referring doctor, Eric
Lewkowiez. The jury could not return a verdict against the other two doctors
because of one holdout vote for acquittal. The hospital settled its
liability for an undisclosed sum early in the trial.
Former patients have reported devastating, permanent amnesia and
cognitive impairment since ECT was first invented in 1938, but that has not
hindered the treatment's popularity with doctors. The first lawsuit for ECT
amnesia, Marilyn Rice v. John Nardini, was brought exactly thirty years ago,
and dozens of suits have followed. While there have been a few settlements,
including one for half a million dollars, no former patient has won a case
until now.
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who served as Ms. Salters' expert witness,
was also the expert in Rice v. Nardini, and has appeared for plaintiffs many
times over the past three decades without success. Psychologist Mary E. Shea
presented extensive neuropsychological testing proving to the jury's
satisfaction that Ms. Salters suffers dementia due to ECT brain damage.
Expert for the defense was Charles Kellner of New Jersey, formerly of
the Medical University of South Carolina. He testified that giving Ms.
Salters' 13 shocks in 19 days, instead of 26 days as is usual, was not a
violation of the American Psychiatric Association guidelines. However, his
assertions that Ms. Salters' severe suicidality justified the controversial
treatment could not be substantiated by the medical records. 82-year-old Max
Fink of New York, widely regarded as the "grandfather of shock" and the
author of many books and articles on ECT, was scheduled to testify for the
defense, but in the end only watched the trial from the courtroom. The
defense did not call him as a witness due to incriminating statements made
under oath at his deposition.
For the past three decades, defense attorneys have won case after case
by the same strategy: browbeating the jury with the plaintiff's psychiatric
history, playing upon the prevailing cultural notions that mental patients
are incapable of telling the truth and doctors don't lie; even claiming that
mental illness causes amnesia and brain damage. Even neurological testing
showing brain damage has been brushed aside. Peggy Salters' case is the
first in which a former ECT patient has been believed. She says she sees it
as a victory for all ECT survivors.
Attorney for Ms. Salters, Mark Hardee, can be reached at (803)
799-0905. Peggy Salters can be reached at (803) 736-4444. Fink's deposition
is available from either of them.
Additional information:
Case 03CP4004797
Richland County, South Carolina
Peggy S. Salters vs. Palmetto Health Alliance, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto Baptist
Medical Center; Robt. Schnackenberg, M.D., Individually, Eric Lewkowiez,
M.D., Individually, Columbia Psychiatric Associates, P.A.; and Kenneth
Huggins, M.D., Individually
Filed October 03, 2003
Decided June 17, 2005