Attitudes toward a treatment influence the acceptability of the treatment. There has been no study of how attitudes toward electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are influenced by what ECT is called. A sample of 125 laypersons was drawn from 3 social settings in Bangalore, India. A short, oral questionnaire was administered to determine the acceptability of ECT under 3 different names: 2 actual and 1 coined. The acceptability of ECT was highest for the coined name electrostimulatory therapy (53%), intermediate for the occasionally used name electroshock therapy (38%), and least for the commonly used name electroconvulsive therapy (9%) (P < 0.001). Electrostimulatory therapy was the preferred choice because it was least associated with the likelihood of harm (P < 0.01). How a treatment is presented may influence reactions to it and, hence, its acceptability. We therefore suggest that ECT is better described as electrostimulatory therapy than as electroconvulsive therapy or electroshock therapy. We further suggest that discussions on ECT should emphasize the stimulatory effects of the treatment and downplay parallels with epilepsy. In an age of political correctness, political correctness should be applied to the description of ECT.