The article “shock therapy for mental patients will be
reviewed” continues the ignorant tradition of demonizing Electro Convulsive
Therapy (ECT) in the media (the very use of the anachronistic and misleading phrase “ shock therapy” is
unwarranted) without presenting the compelling reasons for its continued use.
Most of the facts and quotations in the article, including the gratuitous final
paragraph about pigs in an abattoir, are simply taken from an article by Davar
in “issues in Medical Ethics”, without questioning whether Davar’s presentation
of the issue is an unbiased and scientifically accurate one. What Ms. Davar,
and by extension Ms. Jain, has done is
simply cite authorities who agree with her point of view quote statistics
without context, use an abundance of negative adjectives and ignore outright
the empirically proven benefits (often life- saving) of ECT in many categories
of mentally –ill patients. This is shabby and irresponsible medical journalism.
While this is not the place to dispute, point –by- point,
me. Davar’s presentation of her position and Ms. Jain’s repetition of it. I
would like to quote, to counter their negative emphasis from Andrew Solomon’s
widely read, intensively researched, highly respected book, the Noonday Demon:
An Anatomy of Depression. Solomon writes; “Anti –depressants are effective
(against major depression) about 50 percent of the time, perhaps a bit more.
ECT seems to have some significant impact between 75 and 90 percent of the
time. Many patients feel substantially better within a few days of having an
ECT treatment – a boon particularly striking in contrast to the long, slow
process of medication response. ECT is particularly appropriate for the severely
suicidal- for patients who repeatedly injure themselves and whose situation is
therefore mortally urgent- because of
its rapid action and high response
rate, and it is used in pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly,
because it does not have the systemic side effects or drug – interaction problems of most
medications.”
There are, indeed, problems with the administration of ECT,
especially in a country like India with its poor health infrastructure. It
would be foolish to deny that the practice is subject to abuse (as Solomon and
numerous Indian writers report). The continued use of “direct” ECT (without the
sue of an anaesthetic) is certainly a matter of concern- and a concerted effort
to implement national guidelines making ‘modified” ECT (using an anaesthetic)
mandatory is as necessary as it is laudatory. But we can all do without more
pieces of journalism which perpetuate the myth that ECT is a medically unjustified,
indeed barbaric practice, tantamount to torture. This ignorant view, equally prevalent
in the West as it is in India, has more to do with movies like One Flew over
the Cuckoo’s nest than with scientific fact.
16.
It can be inferred that the author believes that
the author of the article mentioned in the first line
i.
Fails to question her source material rigorously
ii.
Includes unwarranted matter
iii.
Uses an excess of pejorative terms
A.
I only
B.
I and II only
C.
I and III only
D.
I, Ii and III
17.
The author’s attitude towards ECT is best
described as a
A.
Determined neutrality
B.
Mild criticism
C.
Wholehearted approbation
D.
Qualified approval
18.
The author’s makes his point primarily by
A.
Offering a particular authority as a counterview
B.
Attacking one author’s lack of social
responsibility
C.
Criticizing the mindset of medical journalists
D.
A reasoned discussion of the merits and demerits
of a therapy
Answer:
16.
D all
three are correct. Point one is indicated by the phrase “without questioning”,
point two by “gratuitous final paragraph”, point three by “abundance of
negative adjectives
17.
D The author
seems to think that ECT has “proven benefits “but also points out in the last
paragraph that there are problems. Hence his attitude is one of qualified
approval.
18.
A The author
disapproves of a certain article and wishes to urge his readers to examine the issue
in the light of other evidence. To ‘counter their negative emphasis’ the author
refers to only one authority – Solomon. Hence, he makes his point by offering
Solomon’s book as a counterview. The author himself does not do enough for his
manner to count as a “reasoned discussion”.
No comments:
Post a Comment