Distinctive But Not Exceptional: The Risks of Psychedelic Ethical Exceptionalism.

The authors argue against the idea that psychedelics raise uniquely exceptional ethical issues in clinical medicine, comparing this position to earlier debates about genetic exceptionalism in bioethics. They contend that psychedelics share more commonalities with existing medical interventions than is often assumed, and that adopting a stance of "psychedelic ethical exceptionalism" carries risks. Instead, they propose that consistent ethical rules and evidentiary standards should apply across all relevant areas of clinical medicine. While changes to existing standards may be warranted, such changes should not be justified by appealing to the alleged uniqueness of psychedelics.

Study at a glance

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.