Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by racecondition 1909 days ago
are we sure it's a scorched earth approach? I thought we don't exactly know WHY ect works. its possible calibrating neuronal stimulation is good for the brain and helps calibrate neuronal connections that otherwise were not as excercised as much as the ones very depressed people have.

In general, deeply depressed people interpret and perceive even language and visuals differently, in more negative and cynical lights, its hard to consciously teach yourself to constantly perceive the opposite or think in a more positive way, perhaps just stimulating ALL nuerons helps calibrate paths that otherwise were not favored other neuronal pathways highly utilized by depressed people.

To be honest, I've seen more people in my life die from going from antidepressents to street heroine than I have people from ect. I am not ready to say ect is safer than antidepressants. It's also to be noted antidpressants its a multibillion dollar industry of which a very few very rich families make a ton of money and also sell the same drugs for heroine overdoses, many heroine addicts of which came from being cut off from abusing antidepressants, 1/3rd of all heroine addicts actually so...

when you compare ect therapy to a massive opioid epidemic that makes a few people rich, and all of the violence that has encompassed the heroine drug dealing industry, I would say ect is potentially a safer option.

It has a stigma because of how it was originally used.

I would still though be interested in psychadelics over ect but shrooms can cause permanent damage and impacts everyone differently as well so both are hard to streamline I imagine.

1 comments

A literal scorched earth strategy in war is often used while retreating from an enemy & deliberately damaging your own lands to help stop an enemy with the hope that if you ultimately won, you'll be able to rebuild.

This is why I label ECT scorched earth. It risks significant self-damage in what is often a last resort. I'm not dismissing it as a useful treatment, I'm saying it is broad and unfocussed as a result of our inability to do any better, to come up with a better tactic that doesn't risk wholesale destruction of the person. If it was a real war, perfect knowledge of the enemy might allow a less destructive strategy: the same applies here. But there are no medical treatments that don't carry significant risks. It's all a balance, with escalating risks taken when less risky options don't work.