If it truly was, then why was that person threatened into doing it ? If what you're saying is true, then what possible motivation could the doctor have to threaten his patient into accepting this treatment ? (I get that someone else had to say "yes", but that doesn't change the situation)
Second, I resent psychologists using "evidence based" as a term. This, one might think, implies that they have proof. Well no, no proof. It doesn't mean that.
Ok, but surely it means that they have double blind statistical studies ? I mean, that makes "evidence" very misleading, but ... Yes, but those studies say there is no effect beyond placebo (in fact there are valid studies that say that all of psychiatry does not survive a double blind study). So statistical analyses actually says this does not work.
Ok, so what does "evidence based" mean ? Well, it means they have a few anecdotes of mostly temporary improvement (and lots of anecdotes of disastrous outcomes, conveniently left out). Which certainly exist for shooting depressive patients as well. Also they exist for not doing anything.
So why did the doctor force this treatment on her ? Well, to get her out of his clinic. You see, the way you get fired in a psychiatric department is to have a few patients commit suicide in the department. And observation and isolation only helps for so long. In practice, given 4-12 weeks of trying people successfully commit suicide, even under 24 hour observation with no tools in an isolation cell. This patient had gotten really close to doing that, as mentioned in the article (which, incidentally, would be the conditions this patient was held in prior to her getting asked if she'd agree to this treatment. Which of course also means she is mostly happy with the treatment because it got her out of an isolation cell, and still lives under threat of returning to those conditions. Reality of psychiatric patients).
So this is fact: this doctor forced permanent brain trauma on a patient because he was calculating that this trauma would temporarily prevent the patient from committing suicide, long enough so that she'd be out of his department before she actually succeeds.
So reality is simply that this patient was forced to get ineffective treatment that introduced permanent brain trauma against her wishes, with the decision made under extreme stress (introduced by this doctor), and under threat. That she got lucky and seems to be happy with it does not change that. PLUS she might merely be happy that it got her out of the isolation cell she was forced into for weeks/months before.
So let's go through your statement:
> The majority of people who receive ECT are successfully treated
If you don't count the permanent cognitive impairment, and the fact that most would have recovered without any help, then sure "successfully".
> and go on to live fulfilling lives.
Nope, most relapse. Unless you count redoing suicide attempts after ~4 months a sign of a fullfilling life. But of course, that's long enough to get them out of the hospital and let the doctor/hospital "not be responsible".
> ECT is an evidence-based
Nope. I know this term "evidence-based" is used in psychiatric literature, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit, as explained.
> treatment for a
Nope. This is not a treatment by medical standards. For that to be the case there would need to be validation. This wouldn't even satisfy the standards for "experimental treatment", as that would require case-by-case review of an ethics board, which hasn't happened here.
> life-threatening
Nope. The vast majority of patients recover from this without any help. So it was not life threatening. Or at least, not any more
> medical
Nope, psychiatry is still not considered part of medicine by doctors.
> condition.
Well this is the only word in your sentence that was actually correct.