A forthcoming University of Houston study is challenging the foundational electrical theory that psychiatrists have used for decades to justify the safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The research, presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, analyzed a high-resolution 3D model of the human head to trace the path of electric current during ECT. Contrary to the long-standing claim that the scalp shunts away 90-95% of the current, the study found that 82.5% of the total current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid and brain, with only 1.5% passing through the scalp. This directly contradicts the 'shunting theory' and suggests that the brain is exposed to far more electrical energy than previously acknowledged.
The implications are significant. According to an expert involved in the study, electrical energy converts into heat inside the brain, and higher current produces more heat, which can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or cell death. Additionally, electricity can create pores in cell membranes through electroporation, overwhelming the brain's repair mechanisms and leading to cell death. This means ECT risks brain-cell damage from both heating and electroporation, as detailed in the expert report by Kenneth Castleman (https://www.cchrint.org/2024/08/23/the-collapse-of-electroshock/).
Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, draws a parallel between the effects of ECT and closed-brain injury, noting documented changes in the brain after ECT similar to traumatic brain injury. This aligns with concerns raised by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), which has long called for a ban on ECT. CCHR points to the FDA's 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices, arguing that under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360f), the FDA has the authority to ban any device posing an 'unreasonable and substantial risk' of injury.
The stakes are high: an estimated 100,000 Americans undergo ECT annually, and CCHR has documented its use on teenagers and even children as young as five. Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, emphasizes that '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.'
International momentum against ECT is growing. 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 for under-14s in 2014, and Ireland banned it for anyone 18 and under in May 2026 (https://www.hriui.com/en/news-report-irelands-mental-health-act-2026-and-the-advancement-of-human-rights-foundations/). CCHR helped secure the first bans on ECT for minors in California (1976) and Texas (1993).
Survivors' stories underscore the human cost. Paris Jackson, who underwent nine ECT sessions, described them as 'painful' and resulting in severe head pain and amnesia. Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018, reported long-term damage and memory loss, saying, 'I've lost many, many, many years of memories.' Eastgate, who received ECT as a teenager, likened the experience to 'a grenade going off in her body.'
CCHR, established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szasz, continues to advocate for a complete ban on ECT. 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.'
