A forthcoming University of Houston study is poised to undermine the foundational safety claim of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), a psychiatric treatment that has been used for decades despite ongoing controversy. The research, which will be presented at the IEEE EMC+SIPI 2026 Symposium, directly challenges the 'shunting theory' that psychiatrists have relied on to assert that 0.9 amps of electric current is harmlessly diverted by the scalp, protecting the brain from damage.
The new study, which analyzed a high-resolution three-dimensional digital model of the head, found that the opposite is true: 82.5% of the total current flows through the cerebrospinal fluid and brain, while only 1.5% flows through the scalp. This means that the cerebrospinal fluid acts as a major highway distributing current throughout the brain, directly contradicting the claim that the scalp buffers the brain. The findings have prompted the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) to renew its long-standing demand for a ban on ECT devices.
According to an expert involved in the study, the electrical energy converts into heat inside the brain, and higher current produces more heat, which can cause temporary injury, permanent damage, or even cell death. Additionally, electricity can create pores in cell membranes through electroporation. When the 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.
These findings align with the observations of Professor John Read, a leading ECT researcher, who has said that the effects of ECT on the brain are very similar to those of a closed-brain injury, with documented changes akin to traumatic brain injury. CCHR points to decades of research documenting brain damage, memory loss, cognitive deficits, and mortality, yet regulators have never required evidence of long-term safety or effectiveness.
In the United States, an estimated 100,000 Americans undergo ECT annually, and CCHR has documented cases of it being administered to teenagers and even children as young as five in some states. CCHR has long called for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to overturn its 2018 decision to lower the risk classification of ECT devices. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has full authority to ban any device posing an 'unreasonable and substantial risk' of injury.
Jan Eastgate, president of CCHR International, who herself received ECT as a teenager after her underactive thyroid was misdiagnosed as depression, described the experience as 'a grenade going off in her body.' She experienced searing head pain, memory loss, and cognitive deficits that took years to recover from. Her story is echoed by others, including Paris Jackson, who recently spoke out about undergoing nine 'painful' ECT sessions, and Utah Rep. Jake Sawyer, who suffered long-term damage and memory loss after being told the treatment was safe.
The global push against ECT has been growing. The World Health Organization declared in 2005 that there are no indications for ECT on minors and that it should be prohibited through legislation. Several jurisdictions have already implemented bans, including California and Texas in the U.S., Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, and most recently, Ireland, which banned ECT for anyone 18 and under in May 2026.
Eastgate concludes that electroshocking individuals, especially after failed psychiatric drug treatments and institutionalization, is an unnecessary practice that patients need to be protected from. She and CCHR are calling for all electroshock methods for all ages to be prohibited. The new study provides critical evidence that the core rationale for ECT's safety is flawed, strengthening the case for regulatory action.
