ECT survivors speak out about the painful practice administered to an estimated 100,000 Americans each year, including children
By CCHR International
The Mental Health Industry Watchdog
August 27, 2026
Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) highlights a groundbreaking University of Houston study (forthcoming) that contradicts the 80-year psychiatric claim that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is safe. Psychiatrists have long insisted that the 0.9 amps of electric current that pulses through the brain to treat depression with ECT is “buffered” by the scalp, protecting the brain from damage. The recent research results seriously challenge this “shunting theory” and will be further examined with additional study.
Previous claims held that the scalp harmlessly carries 90–95% of the current harmlessly around the brain. The new study analyzed a high-resolution three-dimensional digital model of the head to track the course the current follows during an ECT treatment. The findings show the opposite: 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 major highway distributing current throughout the brain.[1]
Separately, according to one expert involved in the study, electrical energy converts into heat inside the brain. Higher current produces more heat; excessive temperature can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or even cell death. Electricity also can create pores in cell membranes by a process known as electroporation. When the voltage is high enough, the holes overwhelm the brain’s repair mechanisms—toxic material floods in and cells die. ECT therefore risks brain-cell damage from both heating and electroporation.[2]
Electroshock Creates Brain Injury
Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, confirms the parallel: “The effects on the brain [of] ECT is very similar to the effects of what’s called a closed-brain injury… there’s changes in the brain that are documented after ECT, very similar to traumatic brain injury.”[3]
CCHR has long demanded a ban and says the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices must be overturned. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360f), the FDA has full authority to ban any device posing an “unreasonable and substantial risk” of injury.[4]
In the U.S., an estimated 100,000 Americans undergo ECT annually, and CCHR has documented it still being administered to teenagers, and in some states, children five or younger are also at risk of being given it some states.
Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, states: “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-Secured Bans on Minors Safeguard Children
CCHR helped secure the first bans on electroshock for minors—California (1976) and Texas (1993). The World Health Organization declared in 2005 that there are no indications for ECT on minors and that it “should be prohibited through legislation.” Western Australia banned it under age 14 (with criminal penalties) in 2014; the Australian Capital Territory banned it for under 12.[5] Ireland banned it for anyone 18 and under in May 2026.[6]
Survivors describe the reality. As a teenager, Eastgate received ECT after an undiagnosed underactive thyroid was mislabeled as depression. She awoke to searing head pain, failed to recognize her mother, and later could not remember friends or parts of her education. She calls it a barbarity “like a grenade going off in her body.” Proper medical treatment for her thyroid ended her symptoms; recovery of the memory lost by shock took years.
Recently, Michael Jackson’s daughter, Paris, spoke out about undergoing nine “painful” ECT sessions in three weeks, recommended when she felt suicidal after psychiatric drugs and hospitalizations. She experienced severe head pain and amnesia—no memory of visits or conversations with friends despite photographic evidence. Paris recalled her doctor telling her, “It’s not as barbaric as it used to be. They use general anesthetic. You’re knocked out when they shock you.” Monthly lifelong shocks, she said, were “not gonna f–king work.”[7]
Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer (R) received ECT in 2018 after being told it was safe with minimal long-term effects. That was not his experience: “I suffered long-term damage and memory loss. My vocabulary is nowhere near what it used to be, and making new memories is vastly more difficult than it was before.” and “I’ve lost many, many, many years of memories.”[8] He wants ECT banned.
Commenting upon what Jackson underwent, John Read pointed out that the American Psychiatric Association acknowledges that some people may experience memory problems that last months, years or permanently, after undergoing ECT. A 2003 review also found that in a sample of 703 patients, persistent or permanent memory loss was reported by between 29% and 55% of patients. In another study, between 61% and 84% of ECT patients reported experiencing some form of memory loss, which lasted at least three years for most of them. More than half of participants reported experiencing other side-effects from ECT, including emotional numbing, relationship problems and loss of independence.[9]
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 chapters in Europe and CCHR International executives, including Eastgate, have testified about the harm of coercive mental health practices before the Committee for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which opposes forced detainment or treatment, including electroshock. A 2023 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations stated that people offered ECT should be told of the potential short- and long-term risks it comes with – including memory loss and brain damage.[10] The WHO’s Department of Mental Health and Substance Use has warned of ECT’s health risks, including brain damage, cardiovascular complications, memory impairment, and even death. The plan states that ECT should be banned for children and that in the absence of consent in adults, ECT should be considered abuse or torture.
Trauma and Damage Justifies Banning ECT
The University of Houston findings undercuts the long-standing claim that the scalp safely “shunts” ECT current away from the brain; the work instead finds most of the current entering cerebrospinal fluid and brain tissue. Combined with decades of reports of memory loss and brain injury, the absence of required long-term safety proof, WHO and UN warnings, and bans on shocking minors in several jurisdictions—a campaign long driven by CCHR, the FDA should reverse its 2018 down-classification and use its authority under 21 U.S.C. § 360f to treat ECT devices as posing an unreasonable risk—and that electroshock should be prohibited for all ages.
[1] Kenneth Castleman, “Electric Current Density Distribution During Electroconvulsive Therapy,” IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, 979-8-3315-7324-9/26, 537-541. https://online.fliphtml5.com/fhmrg/emc2026_FinalProgram-7-21-26/#p=1
[2] https://www.cchrint.org/2024/08/23/the-collapse-of-electroshock/; Kenneth Castleman, “Expert Report on Electroconvulsive Therapy,” 3 Sept. 2008
[3] Bijan Esfandiari, “Electroshock Therapy (ECT) Trial – Jury Finds Somatics Failed to Warn of ECT Risks,” Wisner Baum, 16 Aug. 2023, https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2023/august/electroshock-therapy-ect-trial-jury-finds-somati/
[4] https://www.cchrint.org/2025/12/08/coalition-and-cchr-call-on-fda-to-review-electroshock-device-and-the-need-for-a-ban/; 21 USC 360f: Banned Devices, From Title 21-FOOD AND DRUGS, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section360f
[5] https://www.cchrint.org/2025/12/08/coalition-and-cchr-call-on-fda-to-review-electroshock-device-and-the-need-for-a-ban/#_edn5; “Electroshock therapy on under-14s banned in WA after law passes Parliament,” ABC News AU, 17 Oct. 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-17/mental-health-bill-passes-wa-parliament/5822874
[6] https://www.cchrint.org/2026/07/24/ireland-bans-electroshock-treatment-on-minors/; “News Report: Ireland’s Mental Health Act 2026 and the Advancement of Human Rights Foundations,” University of Isfahan Human Rights Institute, 17 June 2026, https://www.hriui.com/en/news-report-irelands-mental-health-act-2026-and-the-advancement-of-human-rights-foundations/
[7] “Paris Jackson opens up about ‘painful’ electroconvulsive therapy. She’s not alone,” USA Today, 20 Aug. 2026, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2026/08/20/electroconvulsive-therapy-study-women-side-effects-paris-jackson/91352642007/; On Purpose with Jay Shetty – PARIS JACKSON: “No Intervention Could Have Gotten Me Sober,” transcript, Podscripts, 17 Aug. 2026, https://podscripts.co/podcasts/on-purpose-with-jay-shetty/paris-jackson-no-intervention-could-have-gotten-me-sober
[9] John Read, Ph.D., “Paris Jackson underwent ECT for severe depression. Here’s why the treatment remains debated” The Conversation, 26 Aug. 2026, https://theconversation.com/paris-jackson-underwent-ect-for-severe-depression-heres-why-the-treatment-remains-debated-290269
[10] John Read, Ph.D., “Paris Jackson underwent ECT for severe depression. Here’s why the treatment remains debated” The Conversation, 26 Aug. 2026, https://theconversation.com/paris-jackson-underwent-ect-for-severe-depression-heres-why-the-treatment-remains-debated-290269
SHARE YOUR STORY/COMMENT