Wiesing U, Fallgatter A J
Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Universitätsklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Abteilung Allgemeine Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie mit Poliklinik, Universität Tübingen, Osianderstraße 24, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Nervenarzt. 2018 Nov;89(11):1248-1253. doi: 10.1007/s00115-018-0564-7.
There are no rational reasons why electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) should not be subject to the same criteria in its clinical application as any other treatment in medicine. Associations referring to historical events and their presentation in the media do not provide convincing arguments against the clinical use of ECT. In order to offer ECT to patients, scientifically solid evidence with respect to its clinical results must be available. As this scientific evidence is clearly given, ECT must be offered to the patients. A well-informed, reflected medicine must not withhold an effective treatment like ECT from the patients and medicine should not be influenced by associations but only by scientific evidence, even though the exact mechanisms of action of ECT are not known in detail. The image of ECT has clearly improved during the last decades thereby increasing the hope that unjustified arguments against ECT will lose their impact.
没有合理的理由表明，在临床应用中，电休克疗法（ECT）不应与医学中的任何其他治疗遵循相同的标准。提及历史事件及其在媒体上呈现方式的相关团体并未提供令人信服的论据来反对ECT的临床应用。为了向患者提供ECT治疗，必须有关于其临床效果的科学确凿证据。鉴于已有明确的科学证据，必须向患者提供ECT治疗。知识渊博、经过思考的医学不应拒绝为患者提供像ECT这样有效的治疗方法，医学不应受相关团体的影响，而应仅受科学证据的影响，尽管ECT的确切作用机制尚不完全清楚。在过去几十年中，ECT的形象已明显改善，因此人们更有希望那些反对ECT的不合理论据将失去影响力。
