From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<BrMC81.3pE@ssr.com> <1992Jul20.223711.5097@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.223711.5097@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:

   >>In article <BrMC81.3pE@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
   >> I just want to add a comment
   >>about comparing the risk of procedures which seems to me to be
   >>missing from most discussions of this type - namely the balancing of
   >>benefits against risks. Comparing the risks of ECT and the
   >>Purification rundown should be done objectively and fairly.

   >A very good point -- it is, however, very hard to objectively analyze
   >the benifits of something when many percieved benefits will be
   >metaphysical. 

As I understand it, the expressed purpose of the Purif is a
detoxification program. This is an objective matter which can be
objectively tested.  This is the first I have heard that the purif has
any other function.

   >I will, however, ask you to read what I posted in response to
   >the above mentioned very good article -- about computers and head
   >injuries.

As I understand your point it is that you view ECT is a primitive
procedure, and that with more knowledge of how things work ECT might
not be necessary. I agree completely. Unfortunately I find that the
Church of Scientology *also* opposes recent scientific advances (drug
therapy) which are helping make ECT obsolete in a majority of cases.

In response to a question about the 17% effect side effect from niacin
I cited:

   >Is this individuals who take the Rundown, or world population? This is
   >unclear to me.

This figure is derived from the study of individuals who are
undertaking niacin therapy for cholesterol.

After quoting my table of risk and benefit figures (which asigns a
benefit value of zero to the Purification Rundown), your write:

   >At *least* give the
   >Purification Rundown the same efficacy as you would give voodoo dolls. 

Well, I did. The efficacy of a treatment which does not differ from a
placebo is exactly 0, which is exactly the efficacy of a voodoo doll.

   >For that matter, I, being a humble English Major (for my sins), do not
   >follow your math at all. Please, explain it to me.

I'm just saying that when you evaluate the risk of something, you also
need to evaluate the benefits --- it's not enough to just look at the
risk column alone. As long as risk > 0, and benefits = 0, people
taking the purif are taking unreasonable risk. As long as the benefits
= 0 and the cost > 0, people taking the purif are paying an
unreasonable cost (even if the cost is pennies). The specific figures
are from the references I posted earlier, with the exception of the
80% figure which comes from Weiner and Coffey 'Indications for use of
ECT' APA Review of Psychiary, Vol7 as cited in the APA fact sheet on
ECT.  The guesses are just that, educated guesses based on the
literature I have read - you can remove the **'ed and ***'ed columns
from the table and my argument remains unaffected.

   I'm fairly bright. I don't think that will give me much trouble. If I'm
   missing the point of the example, please be assured that it's quite
   deliberate. 

I apologize. It appears I have given offense where none was intended.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com