Prohibits the provision of electroconvulsive therapy to a minor. (BDR 54-59)
Summary
SB 335 would prohibit any health care provider in Nevada from providing or supervising electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to a person under 18 years old. The ban applies even if the minor and the minor’s parent or legal guardian consent to the treatment. The bill defines electroconvulsive therapy as the use of a brief, intense electrical current applied to the head to induce a major motor seizure for the treatment of severe psychiatric disturbances.
The measure also makes a violation unprofessional conduct, exposing a provider to discipline by the relevant licensing, certifying, or registering board or agency. The bill is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025, and the fiscal note indicates no anticipated fiscal impact on state or local government.
Impact
SB 335 would amend Nevada law in Chapter 629 of NRS to create a categorical prohibition on ECT for minors and to establish professional discipline as the enforcement mechanism. It would affect physicians and other licensed health care providers authorized to provide or supervise psychiatric treatment, as well as the boards and agencies responsible for professional licensing and discipline. The bill does not create a criminal penalty or a civil damages scheme; instead, it relies on professional regulatory consequences for violations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be precautionary and protective of minors. The bill is framed as a direct safeguard against a specific psychiatric treatment for children and adolescents, with no indication in the available record of organized opposition or amendment activity. Because no committee discussion or voting history is included, there is no documented bipartisan or partisan split to assess.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the bill’s absolute prohibition, which removes discretion from clinicians and also overrides parental or guardian consent. Supporters would likely view that as necessary to protect minors from a controversial treatment, while opponents could argue that it interferes with medical judgment and limits treatment options for severe psychiatric conditions. Another likely issue is that the bill targets a treatment sometimes used in difficult, treatment-resistant cases, so the policy balance between child protection and access to care is the main area of debate.