The St. Louis chapter of the Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights condemned psychiatrists at Washington University’s School of Medicine for their use of electroconvulsive therapy on patients suffering from severe depression.

In a press release, the organization applauded Washington University’s commitment to advancing human health but argued that the University’s support of the psychiatric industry and certain psychiatrists on University payroll undermines that goal.

Originating in the early 1900s, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a treatment that induces a controlled seizure via electrical stimulation while a patient is under the influence of general anesthesia and muscle relaxants. Despite a decline in use during the mid-20th century, ECT has undergone significant alterations to improve electrical stimulation methods and optimize the antidepressant side effects.

In December 2011, the Food and Drug Administration proposed to ease the classification of ECT from Class III to Class II (second-highest risk factor), stating that the benefits of electroconvulsive therapy outweighs the risk of possible memory loss caused by its use, according to the Washington Post. This proposal only applies to carefully selected patients with profound depression.

According to the University psychiatry department’s depression program, ECT is considered one of the most effective treatments for severe mental illnesses, with approximately 150,000 patients in the United States undergoing treatment each year.

Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights’ Public Affairs Director Moritz Farbstein acknowledged the medical profession’s approval of ECT but argued against the ethics of such a treatment in statements to Student Life.

“In spite of its sophisticated trappings of science, the brutality of ECT verifies that psychiatry has not advanced beyond the cruelty and barbarism of its earliest treatments. Psychiatrists persist in inflicting electroshock on patients even though no valid medical or scientific justification exists for this practice,” Farbstein wrote. “After more than 60 years, psychiatrists can neither explain how ECT is supposed to work or justify its extensive damage.”

In addition to discussing the role of ECT in residents’ training, its use on pregnant women and rising costs, Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights’ release mentions the work of three Washington University psychiatrists, Dr. Charles Zorumski, Dr. Pilar Cristancho and Dr. Michael Jarvis, all of whom incorporate ECT, among other neuromodulation methods, into their research of effective treatments for treatment-resistant depression.

The release fails to acknowledge the work of any psychiatrists affiliated with the University’s treatment-resistant depression clinic in which ECT is one of many methods used to treat patients.

While the exact mechanics of ECT are unknown, there are several theories that have been proposed, and research is ongoing, according to the psychiatry department.

Farbstein’s main issue with the treatment is the use of seizures to improve patients’ mental states, despite the fact that a seizure is regarded as a medical issue.

“Here’s the conundrum: The whole point of ECT is to force a person to have a seizure. On the one hand, real medical doctors treat seizures as a serious health issue. On the other hand, psychiatrists artificially create seizures as a “treatment” for mental disorders. And on the third hand, psychiatrists also list seizures as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5),” Farbstein wrote.

While the psychiatry department has addressed several misconceptions about ECT, the treatment’s use remains a widely debated topic.

Sophomore Andrew Wang doesn’t view the use of ECT as problematic, so long as psychiatrists obtain informed consent from patients.

“I think that [ECT] is fine as long as it is voluntary, and they explain the procedure to the patient,” Wang said.

Zorumski, Cristancho and Jarvis were unavailable for comment at the time of publication.