Liability and Electroshock Therapy

Abstract

The malpractice status of the use of electroshock therapy (electroencephalotherapy) has been reviewed. In about 40 years, there have been relatively few reported cases dealing with EST (EET) and professional liability. Few cases have been won, and those generally for modest amounts. However, future successful claims are expected to reflect current inflation. Certainly the limited volume of litigation would seem to raise a question as to the justification for the extent of the surcharges charged for psychiatric malpractice insurance for the administration of EST. Potential liability for EST continues to be a significant threat to the psychiatric practitioner, although drug matters, suicide, and conformance with legal standards seem a more significant area for current litigation. Those who use EST (EET) can minimize liability exposure by (1) obtaining an informed consent from the patient, (2) describing the method of treatment and possible complications to the family or patient and so noting, (3) ensuring legal authority to treat the patient who is incompetent to give consent or for whom special procedures are required, (4) treating in accordance with accepted procedures, (5) avoiding outpatient EST, if possible, (6) paying close attention to patient complaints, (7) keeping good records, and (8) not promising perfection.

Liability and mental health services.

“…In the past, ECT raised so many malpractice concerns that some insurance companies applied surcharges to cover it. Current claims arising from ECT do not justify this fear (Perr, 1980; Taub, 1987; Winslade, Liston, Ross, & Weber, 1984). Several theories of negligence provide the basis for ECT claims, including failure to obtain proper informed consent, prescribing unnecessary ECT, or negligently administering it (Abrams, 1989; Christy v. Saliterman, 1970).…”