‘The Great Oblivion’—An Autoethnographic Depiction of Social and Personal Recovery After Electro-convulsive Therapy (ECT)

Abstract

This article aims to shed light on cognitive disabilities after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from an expert-by-experience perspective. It illuminates the living conditions that may follow, with a particular focus on epistemic injustice, societal attitudes, narration and recovery. Since personal narratives about ECT are scant, an autoethnographic method was used through which I weave together my own experiences of ECT and the need for support from, for example, social services, with research in various nearby areas. These experiences were then placed in a wider psycho-social context. Three themes emerged when analysing own experiences of ECT, revealing both risks and important aspects of managing side effects such as cognitive disabilities: (i) At the social services office; (ii) Alienation in society; and (iii) Excerpt from a friendly conversation. Subjective experiences may broaden the understanding of a certain phenomenon which calls for greater (societal) knowledge regarding cognitive disabilities after ECT. It also emphasises the importance of different professionals, including social workers and psychiatric staff, working to promote recovery, legitimise users’ narratives and not seeing disabilities as given obstacles in everyday life.

Using Autoethnography to Reflect on Peer Support Supervision in an Irish Context

“…As a result, it is highly biased towards the world view of the researchers' themselves. However, despite this, it is useful as its sole purpose is to reach knowledge that is difficult and even impossible to extract from other research methodologies (Moberg 2022). This is possible because it allows researchers to become participants within their own study, thus creating new meaning and knowledge (Norton and McLoughlin 2022).…”

“…The utilisation of an autoethnographic approach both benefits and weakens the study outcomes. It benefits as it allows for in-depth discussions to take place between experts that otherwise would be difficult to ascertain and write down (Moberg 2022). However, the use of the named approach also weakens the study as it is highly biassed towards the opinions of the authors of the study.…”