... to think that psychiatry is a bit of a con ...?

[Rommell]

... hidebound as it is by cultural and societal norms. Yet it posits that the criteria it creates are truths as to who is 'well' and who is not. How can a person's mind, their psyche, their being be 'ill' anyway? Plus if it really were possible for a drug to produce 'correct' thinking, then the person who created it would be ruler of the world.

well I wouldn't have neurosurgery

ECT isn't at the top of my list of Treatments I'd Like If I Become Unwell Again but (easy to say this now) am not completely opposed to the idea

For a very small subgroup of people with very severe depression, ECT is the only thing that brings them relief. I've seen it transform people.

It's also done as humanely as possible, under GA and very controlled - nothing like the way it is depicted in films.

I work in MH research and I've seen the scrutiny that goes into protecting the people who participate in research. We don't live in the Dark Ages any more. Yes, in 100 years people will look at the way things are done now and think 'really?' However, I would also hope that they'd realise that they would not have been able to achieve what they had without all the work we did 100 years earlier. Psychiatry isn't perfect, no branch of medicine is, but doing nothing would be infinitely worse for everyone.

I think the list of thing I'd consider probably varies on how ill I am at any given time. Now when I'm well it's probably quite short the risk/benefit balance doesn't quite stack up for me. In 6-12 months when I'm in a hole and can't see myself ever getting out of it the list might look quite different.

I know that ECT is still used but not in the way it was even 20 years ago.