حساب های حرفه ای الکتروشوک درمانی: تحلیل گفتمانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34492||2007||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7468 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Social Science & Medicine, Volume 64, Issue 7, April 2007, Pages 1475–1486
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a socially contested psychiatric intervention. However, the accounts of professionals involved in its use have rarely been systematically investigated. This study aimed to examine the accounts of clinicians who have used ECT on a routine basis. Eight health professionals (psychiatrists, anaesthetists and psychiatric nurses from a major city in the United Kingdom) with experience of ECT administration were interviewed about the procedure. Discourse analysis was used to interpret the interview transcripts. Interviewees appeared to draw on a repertoire, which constructed ECT recipients as severely ill. This was used to support claims which had the effect of: defining who should receive ECT; warranting the use of urgent physical psychiatric treatments; reformulating distress in biological terms; and discounting the therapeutic value of alternative, non-physical interventions. The interviewees managed concerns about ECT in a variety of ways, for example by: rendering it as a medical procedure with concomitant risks and benefits; downplaying a lack of clarity over its evidence base; and undermining the legitimacy of criticisms. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains one of the most widely used but contested and debated interventions in psychiatry. Advocates argue that the procedure is safe, effective and often life-saving (e.g., Abrams, 1997; Fink, 1979) whilst critics argue that it is ineffective and has the potential to cause psychological and neurological harm (e.g., Breggin, 1993; Friedberg, 1977; Johnstone (2000) and Johnstone (2003); Read, 2004). However, there are two neglected areas in the research literature. The first is the relative lack of interest in the experiences of ECT recipients. Recently, researchers, including those with direct personal experience of receiving ECT have tried to redress this imbalance (Johnstone, 1999; Rose, Wykes, Leese, Bindman, & Fleischmann, 2003; Rose, Fleischmann, & Wykes, 2004), and there is a need for further investigation in this area. A second neglected area is the empirical investigation of the accounts of those involved in ECT administration. The two most popular investigatory paradigms here have been psychoanalytic and cognitive. We will briefly review studies from these two paradigms, arguing that these studies are both theoretically and methodologically limited, before making the case for the contribution of a discursive approach.