A forthcoming University of Houston study is challenging the foundational safety claim of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the psychiatric procedure that sends electric currents through the brain to treat depression. The research, presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, directly contradicts the 80-year-old 'shunting theory' that psychiatrists have used to assure patients of ECT's safety.
For decades, the medical establishment maintained that the 0.9 amps of current used in ECT is largely 'buffered' by the scalp, with 90–95% of the electricity harmlessly diverted away from the brain. However, the new study, which used a high-resolution three-dimensional digital model of the head to track current flow during treatment, found the opposite: 82.5% of the total current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brain, while only 1.5% flows through the scalp. The CSF acts as the primary highway distributing current throughout the brain, according to the study.
The implications are significant. Experts involved in the study note that electrical energy converts into heat inside the brain, with higher currents producing more heat. Excessive temperature can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or even cell death. Additionally, electricity can create pores in cell membranes through electroporation. When voltage is high enough, these holes overwhelm the brain's repair mechanisms, allowing toxic material to flood in and cells to die. Thus, ECT risks brain-cell damage from both heating and electroporation, challenging the procedure's safety profile.
Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, draws a stark parallel: "The effects on the brain [of] ECT is very similar to the effects of what's called a closed-brain injury… there's changes in the brain that are documented after ECT, very similar to traumatic brain injury."
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), a mental health watchdog, has long called for a ban on ECT. It says the Food and Drug Administration's 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices must be overturned. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360f), the FDA has authority to ban any device posing an 'unreasonable and substantial risk' of injury. Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, stated: "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."
In the U.S., an estimated 100,000 Americans undergo ECT annually, and CCHR has documented its use on teenagers and even children as young as five in some states. The organization has previously secured bans on ECT for minors in California (1976) and Texas (1993). 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.
Survivors' accounts underscore the human toll. Paris Jackson recently spoke about undergoing nine 'painful' ECT sessions, experiencing severe head pain and amnesia. Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018, says he suffered long-term damage and memory loss, losing 'many, many, many years of memories.' Eastgate, who received ECT as a teenager after a misdiagnosis, describes it as 'like a grenade going off in her body.'
This new research adds to the growing body of evidence questioning ECT's safety, potentially influencing regulatory reviews and clinical practice. For industry leaders and policymakers, the findings could prompt stricter oversight, legal challenges, and a reevaluation of ECT's risk-benefit ratio, particularly for vulnerable populations.
