A forthcoming University of Houston study is poised to undermine the foundational electrical theory that for decades has been used to support the safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), also known as electroshock. The research challenges the long-standing psychiatric claim that the 0.9 amps of current used in ECT is largely diverted by the scalp, thus protecting the brain from harm. This 'shunting theory' has been a cornerstone of ECT's safety justification, but the new findings suggest otherwise, according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), which is highlighting the research.
The study, which analyzed a high-resolution 3D digital model of the head, found that 82.5% of the total current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brain, while only 1.5% flows through the scalp. The CSF acts as the primary conduit distributing current throughout the brain. This directly contradicts the previous assertion that 90–95% of the current is harmlessly shunted away. The implications are significant, as they suggest that the brain is exposed to far more electrical energy than previously acknowledged.
Experts involved in the study also warn of additional risks. Electrical energy can convert into heat within the brain, and higher current produces more heat, which can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or cell death. Furthermore, electricity can create pores in cell membranes through a process called electroporation. When the voltage is high enough, these holes overwhelm the brain's repair mechanisms, allowing toxic material to flood in and cells to die. Thus, ECT poses risks of both thermal and electroporation-induced damage to brain cells.
Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, draws a parallel between the effects of ECT and closed-brain injury. He notes that changes in the brain after ECT are very similar to those seen in traumatic brain injury. This perspective aligns with the concerns raised by CCHR and further underscores the potential for harm.
CCHR has long campaigned for a ban on ECT and is now calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to overturn its 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360f), the FDA has the authority to ban any device that poses an 'unreasonable and substantial risk' of injury. CCHR argues that ECT devices clearly meet this threshold, citing decades of research documenting brain damage, memory loss, cognitive deficits, and even mortality. The organization also notes that regulators have never required evidence of long-term safety or effectiveness for these devices.
In the United States, an estimated 100,000 people undergo ECT annually. CCHR has documented that it is still administered to teenagers, and in some states, children as young as five are at risk. The World Health Organization declared in 2005 that there are no indications for ECT on minors and that it 'should be prohibited through legislation.' Several jurisdictions have already taken action: California banned ECT for minors in 1976, Texas in 1993, Western Australia banned it for under-14s in 2014, the Australian Capital Territory for under-12s, and most recently Ireland banned it for anyone under 18 in May 2026.
Survivors of ECT describe harrowing experiences. Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, received ECT as a teenager after an undiagnosed thyroid condition was mislabeled as depression. She recalls waking up with searing head pain, failing to recognize her mother, and losing memories of friends and education. She describes the procedure as 'like a grenade going off in her body.' Similarly, Paris Jackson recently spoke about undergoing nine 'painful' ECT sessions in three weeks, which left her with severe head pain and amnesia. Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018 after being told it was safe, suffered long-term damage and memory loss, saying his vocabulary and ability to form new memories were significantly impaired.
Eastgate concludes, 'Electroshocking individuals, especially after failed psychiatric drug treatments and institutionalization that deprives individuals of their autonomy, liberty and the right to an undamaged body and life, is an unnecessary practice that patients need to be protected from. All electroshock methods for all ages should be prohibited.' CCHR, established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szasz, continues to advocate for human rights in mental health, and its international executives have testified before the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities against forced treatment, including electroshock. The World Health Organization has also warned of ECT's health risks, including brain damage and cardiovascular complications, and has stated that in the absence of consent, ECT should be considered abuse or torture.
