English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

espanolComo continuacion de la parte primera, el presente trabajo trata de comprender el uso del electroshock, una tecnica cuya efectividad no ha sido inequivocamente demostrada. La falta de evidencia concluyente ha generado consensos que no proceden de un genuino debate interdisciplinario. El concepto de inhibicion terapeutica carece de fundamento. El electroshock reduce el sentido de eficacia personal y autonomia que caracteriza un desenvolvimiento sano, e introduce un mensaje implicito de causalidad en terminos de mal funcionamiento cerebral que resulta estigmatizante. No existen en Espana leyes especificas que regulen este procedimiento. La calidad de la informacion facilitada al paciente es baja y podria derivar en responsabilidad del profesional. Por su excepcionalidad, el electroshock no deberia considerarse un elemento mas de la cartera de servicios. Los profesionales pueden ejercer su objecion de conciencia por razones eticas y cientificas. Una perspectiva interdisciplinar consiste en reivindicar alternativas de tratamiento potencialmente menos lesivas. EnglishThis paper and its first part attempt to comprehend the use of electroshock, a technique whose effectiveness has not been unequivocally demonstrated. The lack of conclusive evidence has generated consensus, but it does not come from a genuine interdisciplinary debate. The concept of therapeutic inhibition is unfounded. Electroshock reduces the sense of personal efficacy and autonomy that characterizes a healthy functioning and introduces an implicit stigmatizing message of causality in terms of brain malfunction. There are no specific laws in Spain that regulate this procedure. The quality of the information provided to the patient is poor and could lead to professional liability. Due to its exceptional nature, electroshock should not be considered as a therapy like any other. Professionals can exercise conscientious objection for ethical and scientific reasons. An interdisciplinary perspective would be to call for potentially less harmful treatment alternatives.

LA PSICOLOGÍA ANTE LA TERAPIA ELECTROCONVULSIVA (II): CONSENSOS INTERESADOS A FALTA DE EVIDENCIA