Article Text
Abstract
The recent renaissance in research on psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is showing great promise for the treatment of many psychiatric conditions. Interestingly, therapeutic outcomes for patients undergoing these treatments are predicted by the occurrence of a mystical experience—an experience characterised in part by a sense of profound meaning. This has led to hypotheses that psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is therapeutic because it enhances perception of meaning, and consequently leads to a meaning response (a therapeutic mechanism that has been well described in the philosophical literature on the placebo effect). The putative mechanism of action of psychedelics as meaning enhancers raises normative ethical questions as to whether it can be justified to pharmacologically increase the perception of meaning in order to heal patients. Using the perspectives of hedonistic moral theories, this paper argues that if psychedelics operate as meaning enhancers, psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy can be ethically justified. An anti-hedonistic objection is presented by applying Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine thought experiment to the case of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. However, it is argued that this objection falls short for two reasons. First, even if pleasure and pain are not the only consequences which have moral value they are not morally irrelevant, therefore, therapeutic meaning enhancement can still be justified in cases of extreme suffering. Second, it is possible that psychedelic states of consciousness do not represent a false reality, hence their therapeutic meaning enhancement is not problematic according to Nozick’s standards.
- enhancement
- neuroethics
- philosophical ethics
- psychopharmacology
- psychiatry
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors RMM is the sole contributor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The Well - Being Index WHO-5: hedonistic foundation and practical limitations
- Ulysses Contracts in psychiatric care: helping patients to protect themselves from spiralling
- “ Idiots, infants, and the insane ”: mental illness and legal incompetence
- To protect or to publish: confidentiality and the fate of the mentally ill victims of Nazi euthanasia
- Pathways to psychiatric care and factors associated with delayed help - seeking among patients with mental illness in Northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
- Moral flux in primary care: the effect of complexity
- Should neurotechnological treatments offered to offenders always be in their best interests
- Is the exclusion of psychiatric patients from access to physician - assisted suicide discriminatory
- To kill is not the same as to let die: a reply to Coggon
- Clozapine - induced pericarditis: an ethical dilemma