Stefanazzi Mary
Private Practice, 254 Navan Road, Dublin 7, Ireland.
HEC Forum. 2013 Mar;25(1):79-94. doi: 10.1007/s10730-012-9182-0.
The debate about ECT in Ireland in recent times has been vibrant and often polarised. The uniqueness of the Irish situation is that the psychiatric profession is protected by legislation whereby ECT treatment can be authorized by two consultant psychiatrists without the consent of the patient. This paper will consider if ECT is ever ethically justified, and if so, under what circumstances. The proposal is to investigate ECT from an ethical perspective with reference to the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The enquiry will begin with an historical context to the origin and development of ECT as a treatment for severe mental illness. The application of various ethical principles will be considered in conjunction with the relevant literature before arriving at a conclusion.
近年来，爱尔兰关于电休克疗法（ECT）的争论一直很激烈，且常常两极分化。爱尔兰情况的独特之处在于，精神科专业受到法律保护，据此，电休克疗法可由两名精神科顾问医生在未经患者同意的情况下授权使用。本文将探讨电休克疗法在伦理上是否合理，如果合理，在何种情况下合理。提议从伦理角度参照联合国教科文组织《生物伦理与人权世界宣言》对电休克疗法进行研究。探究将从电休克疗法作为重症精神疾病治疗方法的起源和发展的历史背景入手。在得出结论之前，将结合相关文献考虑各种伦理原则的应用。
