0
Letters to the Editor
ECT Devices
Psychiatric News
Volume 45 Number 9 page 29-29

I realize that the article "ECT Device Reclassification Raises Access Concerns" in the January 1 issue relates to the device rather than to ECT itself. However, it is interesting to note that after paying a premium of twice my base malpractice insurance coverage for many years because I administer ECT, my malpractice insurance company abolished this extra premium entirely here in Massachusetts. Its actuaries apparently determined that ECT is no more dangerous than psychotherapy. I see this as stronger evidence for ECT as a treatment option than any clinical trial could provide, in light of the well-known suspicious attitude of all insurance companies.

CLIVE DALBY, M.D.
Methuen, Mass.

Interactive Graphics

Video

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Related Articles
Articles