" 
 === Bit of a miserable article === 

 Sorry, but just driving by, this article isn't all that flash. I'm afraid I don't have the time to fix it myself, but i thought I'd point out a few things. 

 Firstly, the article is very inconsistent and poorly cited. For example, take the section on brain structure and ECT. It spends the first paragraph mentioning how all these large international organisations have definitively found that there is no effect, which appears well cited. Then, it jumps to mentioning how 1 organisation delibrately left out facts, and goes into great detail into 2 articles on animal autopsies, from 50 odd years ago. This really seems like minority viewpoint, and stinks of somebody just adding their 2 cents onto the end of a better done and more comprehensive paragraph. Furthermore, it then mentions that ""Numerous other studies between 1942 and 1949 on both humans and animals have found similar findings but were all left out of the 1990 APA report"", the presence of human studies would be much more relevant to the topic and should be discussed instead. But more to the point, why haven't these two articles been identified by any of the organisations mentioned in the first paragraph; it seems like somebody's just gone and randomly found 2 anti-ECT articles and plonked them in and then declared a coverup. Also, why are we referencing a book for two articles, surely we can find the proper reference for the articles themselves? If they're not indexed, because they're too old for example, why can't we use any of the other many studies that apparently exist, I'm sure one of those would be more appropriate. Without knowing where they were published, how can we be certain they're legit, or even peer reviewed? 

 Secondly, under the history section, it's mentioned that ""Unilateral ECT has never been popular with psychiatrists and is still only given to a minority of ECT patients"". Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure that's wrong, the reference does not seem to mention the lack of unilateral ECT popularity. 

 Thirdly, the section on patient experience is largely too long and anaecdotal. It's fair enough having a few of each, but half a dozen of each is too much. Furthermore, the majourity of patients undergoing ECT don't have a particularly negative experience, and most of them find it positive. But having such a large number of severely negative experiences gives undue weight to an extreme minority reaction. Especially since they're all regarding what appears to be severe memory loss (even the positive ones) and long term memory loss is rare if it happens at all. It's like if I found the article on a certain type of car, and put under ""driving experience"" 12 examples all of which involved the driver crashing their car, sure, it happens and is interesting, but it's misrepresenting something as common which is normally quite rare. 

 I'm sure there are other things, but they're the things that bug me most. It seems this page has been hijacked by PoV warriors.    

 ++++++++++++ 
 *Despite the messy state of the current article, imho, it is currently much less biased than it was a couple years ago when the article read like a pro-ECT brochure.  As stated in the first sentence of the article, ECT is highly controversial.  And when you have a topic so controversial, what's appropriate is to remain objective and present the main opposing viewpoints and references to corresponding evidence for each side.  I can tell you that a couple years ago this article read like a pro-ECT brochure because of biased editing.  The problem with only incorporating the APA position is that there is a severe conflict of interest.  You have to realize that psychiatrists conducting ECT on a regular basis make yearly salaries that can be two to three times as high as psychiatrists who do not.  There is a vested financial interest.  It is a money-making industry, not some humanitarian non-profit industry. If ECT were banned, the salaries for thousands of psychiatrists would be slashed in half or more, and others would also be losing money like hospitals, anaesthesiologists and psychiatric nurses.  Yes, the APA position needs to be prominently stated with references to published papers, but it would not be fair and objective to post only the APA position.   

 *With regard to the old animal studies, we don't really need to reference studies from the 1940's because there is new evidence showing that electroshock produces substantial brain damage in animal models.  For example, a recent Russian rodent study utilizing sophisticated technology documented up 10% loss of neurons in parts of the brain after electroshock, and a new Brazilian study found that electroshock produces numerous tiny lesions in the brains of anima