A forthcoming University of Houston study challenges an 80-year-old assumption underpinning electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), providing new evidence that could reshape the debate over the procedure's safety. The research, presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, analyzed a high-resolution 3D digital model of the head to track the path of electric current during ECT. Contrary to the long-standing claim that the scalp 'shunts' 90-95% of the current away from the brain, the model shows that 82.5% of the current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brain, with only 1.5% through the scalp. The CSF acts as a major highway distributing current throughout the brain, according to the study [1].
The findings have significant implications for the safety of ECT, which is administered to an estimated 100,000 Americans annually. Experts involved in the study note that electrical energy converts to heat inside the brain, with higher currents producing more heat that can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or cell death. Additionally, electricity can create pores in cell membranes through electroporation; when voltage is high enough, the holes overwhelm the brain's repair mechanisms, leading to cell death. These mechanisms suggest ECT risks brain-cell damage from both heating and electroporation [2].
Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, draws a parallel between the effects of ECT and closed-brain injury, stating that documented changes in the brain after ECT are similar to traumatic brain injury [3]. This aligns with decades of anecdotal and clinical reports of memory loss, cognitive deficits, and other harms.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), a mental health watchdog, has long called for a ban on ECT. In light of the new study, CCHR is renewing its demand that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overturn its 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices. 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. CCHR argues that ECT devices meet this threshold, citing research documenting brain damage, memory loss, cognitive deficits, and mortality, and noting that regulators have never required evidence of long-term safety or effectiveness.
CCHR has been instrumental in securing bans on ECT for minors in some jurisdictions. California banned it in 1976, Texas in 1993, and Western Australia banned it for under-14s in 2014. The Australian Capital Territory banned it for under-12s. In May 2026, Ireland banned ECT for anyone 18 and under [4][5]. The World Health Organization has stated that there are no indications for ECT on minors and that it should be prohibited through legislation.
Survivors' accounts underscore the human cost. Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, received ECT as a teenager after an undiagnosed thyroid condition was mislabeled as depression. She describes waking up with searing head pain, failing to recognize her mother, and losing years of memories. Proper medical treatment for her thyroid ended her symptoms, but recovery of memory took years. More recently, Paris Jackson spoke publicly about undergoing nine 'painful' ECT sessions, experiencing severe head pain and amnesia, with no memory of visits or conversations despite photographic evidence. Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who received ECT in 2018, reports long-term damage: 'My vocabulary is nowhere near what it used to be, and making new memories is vastly more difficult than it was before.'
The new study's findings, if replicated, could have far-reaching implications for the regulation and use of ECT, potentially bolstering arguments for stricter oversight or outright prohibition. The FDA's authority to ban devices under 21 U.S.C. § 360f provides a legal pathway for action, and CCHR's renewed calls may pressure regulators to revisit the evidence. As 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.'
