Abstract
In cases of malignant catatonia, prompt administration of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) can decrease mortality, whereas delays to initiating ECT have resulted in adverse outcomes, including death. We present a clinical vignette of malignant catatonia that required court-ordered ECT, followed by a discussion of practical and legal obstacles to expediting emergent ECT when patients cannot provide consent. We review particularly exacting mandates for involuntary ECT from three states: California, Texas, and New York. As compared to standard practice for other clinical interventions when a patient lacks decision-making capacity, ECT is highly regulated; in some cases, these regulations can interfere with life-saving treatment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
