Psychedelic injustice: should bioethics tune in to the voices of psychedelic-using communities?

Author:

Miceli McMillan RiccardoORCID

Abstract

Psychedelic compounds are regaining widespread interest due to emerging evidence surrounding their therapeutic effects. The controversial nature of these compounds highlights the need for extensive bioethical input to guide the process of medicalisation. To date there is no bioethics literature that consults the voices of psychedelic-using communities in order to help guide normative considerations of psychedelic medicalisation. In this paper I argue that psychedelic-using communities ought to be included in bioethical discussions that guide normative elements of psychedelic medicalisation. I argue this by presenting two points. First, psychedelic-using communities hold a degree of epistemic expertise regarding psychedelics by virtue of their embodied experiences with these compounds. Therefore, these communities are able to identify normative considerations that communities without embodied experiences would overlook. Second, psychedelic-using communities are uniquely and heavily affected by psychedelic medicalisation. Therefore, the needs of these communities ought to be considered when evaluating and implementing normative changes that alter psychedelic usage in society. The counterargument that psychedelic-using communities should not guide normative considerations of psychedelic medicalisation is presented by highlighting empirical data that suggest groups of the public with embodied experiences regarding a topic are less able to engage in deliberative reasoning on the said topic than the lay public. However, I propose that even if this is the case, psychedelic-using communities are owed consultation by agents of psychedelic medicalisation in order to undo and cease perpetuating epistemic injustice against these communities.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Philosophy,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Reference27 articles.

1. “Psychedelic Medicine: Safety and Ethical Concerns.”;Anderson;The Lancet. Psychiatry,2020

2. Beiner A . 2021. “Who’s in Charge of Psilocybin?” https://chacruna.net/who_owes_psilocybin/.

3. Cadoch J. , and Dannen L. . 2021. “Blending the Art and Science of Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy.” https://www.mayahealth.com/blog/blending-the-art-and-science-of-psychedelic-assisted-therapy.

4. Davis D . 2017. “How My Elder’s Sacred Peyote Is Disappearing.” https://chacruna.net/my-elders-sacred-peyote-is-disappearing/.

5. “How Psychedelic Researchers’ Self-Admitted Substance Use and Their Association with Psychedelic Culture Affect People’s Perceptions of Their Scientific Integrity and the Quality of Their Research.”;Forstmann;Public Understanding of Science,2021

Cited by 21 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. The Hopkins-Oxford Psychedelics Ethics (HOPE) Working Group Consensus Statement;The American Journal of Bioethics;2024-05-02

2. Choosing Suggested Integration Goals;EMBARK Psychedelic Therapy for Depression;2024-04-23

3. Working Within the EMBARK Domains Cheat Sheet;EMBARK Psychedelic Therapy for Depression;2024-04-23

4. Medicine Sessions;EMBARK Psychedelic Therapy for Depression;2024-04-23

5. Preparation Sessions;EMBARK Psychedelic Therapy for Depression;2024-04-23

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3