A forthcoming University of Houston study challenges the foundational electrical theory behind electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), contradicting decades of psychiatric claims that the procedure is safe. The research, which will be presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, used a high-resolution 3D digital model of the head to track current flow during ECT. Contrary to the long-held 'shunting theory' that the scalp harmlessly diverts 90–95% of the current away from the brain, the findings show that 82.5% of the total current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid and brain, with only 1.5% through the scalp. The cerebrospinal fluid acts as a major highway distributing current throughout the brain, according to the study.
The implications are significant for the estimated 100,000 Americans who undergo ECT annually. Experts involved in the study note that electrical energy converts into heat inside the brain, and higher current produces more heat, potentially causing temporary injury, permanent damage, or cell death. Additionally, electricity can create pores in cell membranes through a process called electroporation, which can overwhelm the brain's repair mechanisms and lead to cell death. These mechanisms suggest that ECT poses risks of brain-cell damage from both heating and electroporation.
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 and now renews its demand in light of this new evidence.
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, the FDA has the authority to ban devices posing an 'unreasonable and substantial risk' of injury. The organization cites decades of research documenting brain damage, memory loss, cognitive deficits, and mortality associated with ECT, while regulators have never required evidence of long-term safety or effectiveness.
Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, emphasizes the need for regulatory action: 'Electroshock devices meet the FDA threshold, which need to be revisited.' She also highlights that ECT is still administered to teenagers and, in some states, children as young as five, despite the World Health Organization's 2005 declaration that there are no indications for ECT on minors and that it should be prohibited through legislation. Several jurisdictions have already taken steps to ban or restrict ECT for minors, including Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and most recently, Ireland, which banned ECT for anyone 18 and under in May 2026.
Survivors' accounts underscore the human toll. Eastgate herself received ECT as a teenager after an undiagnosed thyroid condition was mislabeled as depression, leading to searing head pain, failure to recognize her mother, and long-term memory loss. She describes the experience as 'like a grenade going off in her body.' Similarly, Paris Jackson has spoken publicly about undergoing nine 'painful' ECT sessions, experiencing severe head pain and amnesia despite photographic evidence of visits with friends. Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018, reports suffering long-term damage and memory loss, stating, 'I've lost many, many, many years of memories.'
As the scientific consensus evolves, CCHR's call for a ban gains momentum. The organization, established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz, has a history of advocating for mental health reforms. With the new study challenging the safety of ECT, the debate over its use is far from over, and the push for regulatory action is likely to intensify.
