Market approval and the right to health: a human rights perspective on MDMA-assisted therapy
JME Practical Bioethics April 1, 2026 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1136/jmepb-2025-000039
Summary
The rejection of MDMA-assisted therapy by the FDA in 2024 sparked a debate about ethical drug regulation, particularly concerning human rights and health. The analysis argues that while ethical concerns were raised, they did not adequately consider the potential benefits for patients who could have received the therapy. It suggests that a human rights-based approach may support broader access to unlicensed use programs and calls for a reevaluation of evidentiary standards for market approval in psychedelic trials.
Study at a glance
| Key finding | Ethical arguments for rejecting MDMA-assisted therapy were insufficient as they did not fully account for the costs to patients who could have benefited from the treatment. |
|---|
Abstract
The application for MDMA-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) and its rejection by the FDA in 2024 prompted a debate about ethical aspects in drug regulation. This paper examines central issues raised in that debate through the lens of human rights, especially the right to health. It argues that drug approval decisions must take into account the multipolar constellation of and dependencies between patients, regulators, pharmaceutical sponsors and members of the public whose health interests may be affected. With an eye on future applications of psychedelics expected soon, the paper analyses key ethical arguments brought forward for rejecting the MDMA-AT application. While acknowledging the importance of the ethical concerns raised, the analysis suggests that typical arguments for rejection insufficiently considered the costs imposed on patients who would have benefitted from the therapy. These ethical arguments, taken by themselves, are insufficient to justify the rejection. The paper further situates market authorisation within broader considerations of access to medicines and argues that, under certain empirical conditions, a human rights-based approach supports expansions of unlicensed use programmes. Finally, it examines the ethical implications of evidentiary standards for market approval in light of the problem of functional unblinding in psychedelic trials, suggesting that double-blind randomised controlled trial requirements warrant reconsideration should they prove practically infeasible.