This project sought to identify the requirements for ‘informed’ consent in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). In pursuit of this goal, the study investigated the validity of claims made by Blease who asserted that patients ‘should surely be privy to the matters of fact that: (1) there is continued controversy over the effectiveness of ECT; (2) there is orthodox scientific consensus that there is currently no acknowledged explanation for ECT and (3) there is a serious (mainstream) debate over whether the response to ECT may be a placebo response.’

The study found that evidence-based support for ECT from both National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Royal College of Psychiatrists were identified, undermining the validity of claims (1) and (3), and therefore the rationale for providing this information. Concerning assertion (2), the study corroborated Blease’s claim of a lack of understanding of the mechanism by which ECT has its therapeutic effect, although the finding that the same irresolution surrounds the mechanism of action of pharmaceutical antidepressants, highlighted that a double standard in patient care needs to be mindfully avoided if provision of this information is deemed a prerequisite for proper ‘informed’ consent.