Refusal of ECT in Severe Depression With Mild Dementia and Delirium
Mrs B is a 72-year-old woman with recurrent major depression and mild vascular dementia (MMSE 22/30). She has lost 9 kg in 6 weeks, drinks little, and is dehydrated. Her psychiatrist recommends ECT because of severe weight loss and a previous good response, but she refuses: “I don’t want electricity through my brain.” She can state that she may die without treatment and that ECT is recommended, but she says it “never works for people like me.” Her daughter, who holds a general power of attorney for finances, demands that ECT proceed. There is no advance directive. The team documents fluctuating attention in the evening and a urinary tract infection under treatment. She has no prior suicide attempt and denies current suicidal intent, but says life is “not worth it.” The hospital’s legal officer asks for a capacity assessment before any application to a tribunal.
1. How should capacity to refuse ECT be assessed, and how should the fluctuating attention affect the assessment?
Read the worked answer
Capacity is decision-specific, not a global score. The assessor should explain ECT, its likely benefits, material risks, alternatives, and the consequences of refusal in simple language, then test four abilities: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and communication of a choice. The MMSE of 22/30 is background information, not the answer.
Her statement that she may die shows some understanding. Her belief that ECT “never works for people like me” needs exploration: is it a stable value judgment, a delusional belief, or depression-driven hopelessness? Depression can distort reasoning without automatically removing capacity.
The fluctuating attention is a red flag for delirium from the urinary tract infection, dehydration, or another cause. Capacity should not be finally determined while she is delirious. Treat the infection and dehydration, rehydrate, review medications, and reassess when attention is stable. Document the structured assessment, collateral information, and the reasoning behind the conclusion.
2. If she is found to lack capacity and continues to refuse, what legal and ethical steps apply?
Read the worked answer
Lack of capacity does not create a simple power to override refusal. ECT is often governed by specific mental health or guardianship legislation, sometimes requiring a tribunal, a second independent opinion, or consent from a guardian with health-care authority. The daughter’s power of attorney for finances does not necessarily authorize health-care decisions, and her demand is not determinative.
The team should first use the least restrictive effective measures: treat the delirium, rehydrate, optimize antidepressant treatment, and provide nursing and nutritional support. If ECT remains necessary, apply to the correct legal body and document the best-interests reasoning, including the patient’s previously expressed values and the likely effect of delay.
An emergency exception should be narrow. If she still has capacity, her refusal must be respected even if the team disagrees. If she lacks capacity, the legal process must authorize treatment; clinical urgency alone is not a substitute for that process.
3. What should the team do about the urinary tract infection and dehydration before concluding she has treatment-resistant depression?
Read the worked answer
The urinary tract infection and dehydration are potential causes of delirium and can worsen both mood and capacity. The team should treat the infection, correct fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, review anticholinergic and sedative medications, assess pain and constipation, and observe her attention over time.
Only after these contributors are addressed should the team judge the severity and treatability of the depression. A delirium superimposed on dementia can mimic a deteriorating depression and can make ECT refusal look more fixed than it is. Reassessing mood, food intake, and capacity after correction may change the decision.
This does not mean ECT should be delayed indefinitely if she remains severely ill. It means the consent and capacity process must be based on the settled clinical picture, not on a reversible delirium. The team should record what was corrected, what changed, and why ECT is still being considered.