Distinctive But Not Exceptional: The Risks of Psychedelic Ethical Exceptionalism.
Katherine Cheung, Brian D Earp, Kyle Patch, David B Yaden
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB January 1, 2025 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2024.2433421 via PubMed
Summary
Psychedelics should not be treated as ethically exceptional compared to other medical interventions. The authors argue that there are parallels with past debates in bioethics, particularly regarding genetic exceptionalism. They caution against adopting a stance of 'psychedelic ethical exceptionalism' and advocate for consistent ethical rules and evidentiary standards across all clinical medicine. Changes to existing standards may be warranted but should not be justified by the perceived uniqueness of psychedelics.
Study at a glance
| Key finding | Psychedelics should be subject to the same ethical and evidentiary standards as other medical interventions. |
|---|
Abstract
When used clinically, psychedelics may appear unusual or even unique when compared to more familiar or long-standing medical interventions, prompting some to suggest that the ethical issues raised may likewise be exceptional. If that is correct, then perhaps psychedelics should be treated differently from other medical substances: for example, by being subjected to different ethical or evidentiary standards. Alternatively, it may be that psychedelics have more in common with various existing medical interventions than first meets the eye. We argue in favor of the latter position, drawing on parallels from earlier debates around genetic exceptionalism in bioethics. We suggest there are risks to adopting a stance of "psychedelic ethical exceptionalism," and propose that consistent ethical rules and evidentiary standards should be applied across all relevant areas of clinical medicine. Importantly, this does not preclude the possibility that changes to existing standards should be made; but if so, this should not be justified by appealing to the alleged uniqueness of psychedelics.