Heated debate as judges, psychiatrists and patients clash over bill extending length of court‑authorized electroconvulsive therapy

Legislators heard nearly three hours of sharply divided testimony on House Bill 6837 on Feb. 3, a proposal to extend the maximum duration that a probate court order can authorize electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from 45 days to 90 days and to align voluntary consent periods with the same 90‑day interval.

Supporters — including psychiatrists, hospital medical directors and probate judges who conduct ECT hearings — told the committee the change would protect a small group of very ill patients (for example, those with malignant catatonia or chronic, maintenance‑dependent treatment response) from harmful interruptions in care when court renewal timelines and scheduling delays prevent timely continuation of treatment.

“Sometimes these patients are so gravely ill they cannot advocate for themselves,” said Dr. Javeed Sekhera, chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living. “For some, the course of therapy and maintenance schedules require more than 45 days between court reviews; a lapse can cause clinical deterioration that is life‑threatening.” He and other clinician witnesses described cases in which patients required continuing, sometimes maintenance, ECT to remain functional.

Judge Evelyn Daley, a longtime probate judge who routinely oversees ECT petitions at John Dempsey Hospital, said the 45‑day renewal cycle places large burdens on families and court resources and urged extending the renewal period to reduce hardship for conserved patients and their loved ones.

Opponents included patient advocates, Disability Rights Connecticut, Connecticut Legal Rights Project and multiple speakers who said they had experienced or observed harms after ECT. Those testifying against the bill warned about memory loss, cognitive injury and the risk of continued treatment without sufficient due‑process protections. Kathy Flaherty of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project said the 45‑day timetable is an important judicial safeguard and noted that probate judges’ decisions can be appealed but that emergency ECT can still be administered while appeals proceed.

Attorney Gina Teixeira of Disability Rights Connecticut described legal differences between involuntary medication and involuntary ECT proceedings. She noted that involuntary medication hearings use a clear‑and‑convincing standard and appoint a conservator to provide substituted consent; the statute governing ECT uses a lower preponderance standard and does not provide the same replacement consent processes, she said. Teixeira and others urged the committee to consider reforms that would provide equivalent procedural protections, such as appointing a substitute decision‑maker and guaranteeing appeal stays where ECT is being administered.

Medical witnesses described scenarios in which scheduling, court availability and the heavy demand for ECT slots at a limited number of treatment centers can delay care. Proponents said an extended renewal would be narrowly applied to the small fraction of patients who require ongoing, maintenance or lengthy courses of ECT. Opponents asked for stronger procedural protections — including better access to counsel for appeals, automatic stays when appeals are filed, and clearer conservator‑consent standards — before changing the law.

Several patient speakers and disability advocates described long‑term cognitive and functional declines after ECT in individual cases and urged the panel not to reduce judicial oversight. Proponent clinicians said they seek safeguards and that the proposed change would preserve judicial oversight but avoid harmful interruptions for some patients.

Committee members repeatedly asked for compromise language — for example, limiting the 90‑day extension to patients who show clinical improvement within the initial 45 days — and asked agencies to consider appeals procedures and data collection. The committee did not vote; members asked staff to return with technical fixes, possible compromises and language options covering procedural safeguards and evidence reporting.