Clinical and legal differences in the use of involuntary electroconvulsive therapy for life-Threatening illness across european countries

Objectives Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) can be life-saving in situations where patients are at risk of dying from severe manifestations of psychiatric illness. In some of these cases, patients are unwilling/unable to consent to ECT, and involuntary ECT is required. Such use of involuntary ECT varies substantially across European countries for unclear reasons. The aim of this study was to examine clinical and legal differences in this use of involuntary ECT across European countries. Methods A questionnaire based on a case vignette (a 55-year-old female inpatient with psychotic depression at imminent risk of dying from metabolic derangement because of refusal to eat and drink) was sent to an ECT practitioner in each of 31 European countries. Results We received responses from ECT practitioners in 18 countries. In 7 of these countries, involuntary ECT could be carried out without approval from others and/or involvement of the court system in the case described in the vignette. Practitioners in the remaining 11 countries responded that they either could not carry out involuntary ECT or would have to meet certain requirements before initiating involuntary ECT (e.g., approval from medical/ethics committee and second opinion from an independent psychiatrist). Notably, the rules regarding involuntary ECT differed for adults and minors (more restrictive for the latter) in 6 of the 18 countries. Conclusions In many European countries, legislation precludes or delays the use of involuntary ECT. Harmonization of the legislation on involuntary ECT across European countries to allow for better access to this potentially life-saving treatment seems warranted.