Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919708
Michael Nair-Collins
ABSTRACT:
Organismal superposition holds that the same individual both is and is not an organism, as a consequence of organismal pluralism. When coupled with the assumption that death is the cessation of an organism, this entails that there is no unique answer as to whether brain death is biological death. This essay argues that concerns about organismal pluralism and superposition do not undermine a theory of biological death, nor entail any metaphysical indeterminacy about the biological vital status of a brain-dead individual.
{"title":"Organismal Superposition and Death","authors":"Michael Nair-Collins","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919708","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>Organismal superposition holds that the same individual both is and is not an organism, as a consequence of organismal pluralism. When coupled with the assumption that death is the cessation of an organism, this entails that there is no unique answer as to whether brain death is biological death. This essay argues that concerns about organismal pluralism and superposition do not undermine a theory of biological death, nor entail any metaphysical indeterminacy about the biological vital status of a brain-dead individual.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"224 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139909935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919717
Katherine Cheung, Brian D. Earp, David B. Yaden
ABSTRACT:
Psychedelics, including psilocybin, and other consciousness-altering compounds such as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), currently are being scientifically investigated for their potential therapeutic uses, with a primary focus on measurable outcomes: for example, alleviation of symptoms or increases in self-reported well-being. Accordingly, much recent discussion about the possible value of these substances has turned on estimates of the magnitude and duration of persisting positive effects in comparison to harms. However, many have described the value of a psychedelic experience with little or no reference to such therapeutic benefits, instead seeming to find the experience valuable in its own right. How can we make sense of such testimony? Could a psychedelic experience be valuable even if there were no persisting beneficial effects? If so, how? Using the concept of psychological richness, combined with insights from the philosophy of aesthetics and the enhancement literature, this essay explores potential sources of value in the acute subjective experience, apart from the value derived from persisting beneficial effects.
{"title":"Valuing the Acute Subjective Experience","authors":"Katherine Cheung, Brian D. Earp, David B. Yaden","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919717","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>Psychedelics, including psilocybin, and other consciousness-altering compounds such as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), currently are being scientifically investigated for their potential therapeutic uses, with a primary focus on measurable outcomes: for example, alleviation of symptoms or increases in self-reported well-being. Accordingly, much recent discussion about the possible value of these substances has turned on estimates of the magnitude and duration of persisting positive effects in comparison to harms. However, many have described the value of a psychedelic experience with little or no reference to such therapeutic benefits, instead seeming to find the experience valuable in its own right. How can we make sense of such testimony? Could a psychedelic experience be valuable even if there were no persisting beneficial effects? If so, how? Using the concept of psychological richness, combined with insights from the philosophy of aesthetics and the enhancement literature, this essay explores potential sources of value in the acute subjective experience, apart from the value derived from persisting beneficial effects.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919707
Piotr Grzegorz Nowak
ABSTRACT:
According to the mainstream bioethical stance, death constitutes the termination of an organism. This essay argues that such an understanding of death is inappropriate in the usual context of determining death, since it also has a social bearing. There are two reasons to justify this argument. First, the mainstream bioethical definition generates an organismal superposition challenge, according to which a given patient in a single physiological state might be both alive and dead, like Schrödinger's cat. Therefore, there is no clear answer as to whether organ retrieval from a brain-dead patient is an act of killing or not. Second, when combined with the dead donor rule, the mainstream position in the definition of death might lead to ethically unacceptable verdicts, since there is a discrepancy between terminating an organism and depriving someone of moral status.
{"title":"Organismal Superposition Problem and Nihilist Challenge in the Definition of Death","authors":"Piotr Grzegorz Nowak","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919707","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>According to the mainstream bioethical stance, death constitutes the termination of an organism. This essay argues that such an understanding of death is inappropriate in the usual context of determining death, since it also has a social bearing. There are two reasons to justify this argument. First, the mainstream bioethical definition generates an organismal superposition challenge, according to which a given patient in a single physiological state might be both alive and dead, like Schrödinger's cat. Therefore, there is no clear answer as to whether organ retrieval from a brain-dead patient is an act of killing or not. Second, when combined with the dead donor rule, the mainstream position in the definition of death might lead to ethically unacceptable verdicts, since there is a discrepancy between terminating an organism and depriving someone of moral status.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"176 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919713
Hajung Lee
ABSTRACT:
This essay explores a more inclusive and equitable interpretation of "religion" within the context of religious vaccine exemptions. The existing literature critiques the prevalent interpretation of the meaning of religion in religious exemption cases, but frequently overlooks the importance of incorporating the concept of "lived religion." This essay introduces the concept of lived religion from religious studies, elucidates why this lived religion approach is crucial for redefining "religion," and illustrates its application in the domain of religious vaccine exemptions. The author contends that broadening the meaning of religion by employing the concept of lived religion would promote a more inclusive and equitable implementation of religious vaccine exemptions.
ABSTRACT:This essay explore a more inclusive and equitable interpretation of "religion" within the context of religious vaccine exemption.现有文献批评了宗教豁免案例中对宗教含义的普遍解释,但往往忽略了纳入 "生活宗教 "概念的重要性。本文介绍了宗教研究中的 "活生生的宗教 "概念,阐明了为什么这种活生生的宗教方法对于重新定义 "宗教 "至关重要,并说明了其在宗教疫苗豁免领域的应用。作者认为,通过采用 "活生生的宗教 "这一概念来拓宽宗教的含义,将促进更加包容和公平地实施宗教疫苗豁免。
{"title":"Lived Religion in Religious Vaccine Exemptions","authors":"Hajung Lee","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919713","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>This essay explores a more inclusive and equitable interpretation of \"religion\" within the context of religious vaccine exemptions. The existing literature critiques the prevalent interpretation of the meaning of religion in religious exemption cases, but frequently overlooks the importance of incorporating the concept of \"lived religion.\" This essay introduces the concept of lived religion from religious studies, elucidates why this lived religion approach is crucial for redefining \"religion,\" and illustrates its application in the domain of religious vaccine exemptions. The author contends that broadening the meaning of religion by employing the concept of lived religion would promote a more inclusive and equitable implementation of religious vaccine exemptions.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919711
Marta Spranzi
ABSTRACT:
Most medical learned societies have endorsed both "equivalence" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the "discontinuity" between euthanasia and practices to withhold or withdraw treatment. While the latter are morally acceptable insofar as they consist in letting the patient die, the former constitutes an illegitimate act of actively interfering with a patient's life. The moral distinction between killing and letting die has been hotly debated both conceptually and empirically, most notably by experimental philosophers, with inconclusive results. This article employs a "revisionary" intuititionist perspective to discuss the results of a clinical ethics study about intensivists' perceptions of withhold or withdraw decisions. The results show that practitioners' moral experience is at odds with both the discontinuity and equivalence theses. This outcome allows us to revisit certain concepts, such as intention and causal relationship, that are prominent in the conceptual debate. Intensivists also regard end-of-life decisions as being on a scale from least to most active, and whether they regard active forms of end-of-life decisions as ethically acceptable depends on the overarching professional values they endorse: the patient's best chances of survival, or the patient's quality of life.
ABSTRACT:Most medical learned societies have endorsed both "equivalence" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the "discontinuity" between euthanasia and practices to withholding or withdraw treatment.后者在道义上是可以接受的,因为它是让病人死亡,而前者则是积极干预病人生命的非法行为。关于 "杀死 "与 "让病人死亡 "之间的道德区别,无论是在概念上还是在经验上都引起了激烈的争论,其中最著名的是实验哲学家们的争论,但结果并无定论。本文采用 "修正的 "直觉主义视角,讨论了一项临床伦理学研究的结果,该研究涉及重症监护医师对暂停或撤消决定的看法。研究结果表明,从业人员的道德体验与不连续性论和等价性论都不一致。这一结果使我们能够重新审视某些概念,如概念辩论中突出的意图和因果关系。重症医学从业者也认为生命末期的决定从最不积极到最积极,而他们是否认为积极形式的生命末期决定在伦理上是可接受的,取决于他们所认可的首要专业价值观:患者的最佳生存机会或患者的生活质量。
{"title":"Euthanasia and End-of-Life Decisions: From the Empirical Turn to Moral Intuitionism","authors":"Marta Spranzi","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919711","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>Most medical learned societies have endorsed both \"equivalence\" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the \"discontinuity\" between euthanasia and practices to withhold or withdraw treatment. While the latter are morally acceptable insofar as they consist in letting the patient die, the former constitutes an illegitimate act of actively interfering with a patient's life. The moral distinction between killing and letting die has been hotly debated both conceptually and empirically, most notably by experimental philosophers, with inconclusive results. This article employs a \"revisionary\" intuititionist perspective to discuss the results of a clinical ethics study about intensivists' perceptions of withhold or withdraw decisions. The results show that practitioners' moral experience is at odds with both the discontinuity and equivalence theses. This outcome allows us to revisit certain concepts, such as intention and causal relationship, that are prominent in the conceptual debate. Intensivists also regard end-of-life decisions as being on a scale from least to most active, and whether they regard active forms of end-of-life decisions as ethically acceptable depends on the overarching professional values they endorse: the patient's best chances of survival, or the patient's quality of life.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919718
Wayne Sumner
ABSTRACT:
The relationship between philosophy and bioethics remains a matter of perennial debate, but there does appear to be a consensus on one issue: whatever bioethics might want to borrow from philosophical ethics, it won't be normative theories. This essay argues that theories can have an important role to play in bioethics, though it might not be the one traditionally assumed by philosophers.
{"title":"Does Bioethics Need Ethical Theories?","authors":"Wayne Sumner","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919718","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>The relationship between philosophy and bioethics remains a matter of perennial debate, but there does appear to be a consensus on one issue: whatever bioethics might want to borrow from philosophical ethics, it won't be normative theories. This essay argues that theories can have an important role to play in bioethics, though it might not be the one traditionally assumed by philosophers.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919715
Logan Neitzke-Spruill, Nese Devenot, Dominic Sisti, Lynnette A. Averill, Amy L. McGuire
ABSTRACT:
Psychedelics have again become a subject of widespread interest, owing to the reinvigoration of research into their traditional uses, possible medical applications, and social implications. As evidence for psychedelics' clinical potential mounts, the field has increasingly focused on searching for mechanisms to explain the effects of psychedelics and therapeutic efficacy of psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT). This paper reviews three general frameworks that encompass several prominent models for understanding psychedelics' effects—specifically, neurobiological, psychological, and spiritual frameworks. Following our review, the implications of each framework for ethics and professional competencies in the implementation of psychedelics as medicines are explored. We suggest that interdisciplinary education may be necessary to improve communication between researchers, develop models that effectively incorporate multiple levels of analysis, and facilitate collaboration between professionals with diverse backgrounds in the implementation of psychedelic medicines. We also address pitfalls associated with overemphasis on neuro-mechanisms, risks associated with instigating vulnerable states of consciousness, and hurdles associated with the integration of spiritual frameworks in medicine. Ultimately, as psychedelics push the boundaries of explanatory frameworks focused on one level of analysis, developing new and more useful models to reflect knowledge being produced in this field should be a central aim of psychedelic science going forward.
{"title":"Bio-Psycho-Spiritual Perspectives on Psychedelics: Clinical and Ethical Implications","authors":"Logan Neitzke-Spruill, Nese Devenot, Dominic Sisti, Lynnette A. Averill, Amy L. McGuire","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919715","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919715","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>Psychedelics have again become a subject of widespread interest, owing to the reinvigoration of research into their traditional uses, possible medical applications, and social implications. As evidence for psychedelics' clinical potential mounts, the field has increasingly focused on searching for mechanisms to explain the effects of psychedelics and therapeutic efficacy of psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT). This paper reviews three general frameworks that encompass several prominent models for understanding psychedelics' effects—specifically, neurobiological, psychological, and spiritual frameworks. Following our review, the implications of each framework for ethics and professional competencies in the implementation of psychedelics as medicines are explored. We suggest that interdisciplinary education may be necessary to improve communication between researchers, develop models that effectively incorporate multiple levels of analysis, and facilitate collaboration between professionals with diverse backgrounds in the implementation of psychedelic medicines. We also address pitfalls associated with overemphasis on neuro-mechanisms, risks associated with instigating vulnerable states of consciousness, and hurdles associated with the integration of spiritual frameworks in medicine. Ultimately, as psychedelics push the boundaries of explanatory frameworks focused on one level of analysis, developing new and more useful models to reflect knowledge being produced in this field should be a central aim of psychedelic science going forward.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"144 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919709
David Shumway Jones
ABSTRACT:
As global warming became a cause of concern in the 1980s, researchers and climate activists initially paid little attention to the possible health effects of a warmer world. This changed quickly between 1985 and 1989, when scientists working on contracts with the US Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency extrapolated from existing knowledge about the impact of weather on health to speculate about how global warming would impact health. However, they downplayed the impact of their contributions by highlighting the uncertainty in their models and the adaptability of human societies. Since that time, physicians and other health scientists have maintained a steady drumbeat of warnings about the health effects of global warming. They have published widely in the medical literature and participated actively in international scientific collaborations. Their research has significantly increased the breadth and depth of climate-health science and shown that measurable impacts of global warming have already begun. But as the many climate crises of 2023 show, action against global warming remains inadequate. Is it still reasonable to hope that health advocacy will incite communities and politicians to act? The history of climate and health advocacy reveals many obstacles that must be overcome.
{"title":"\"Inherently Limited by Our Imaginations\": Health Anxieties, Politics, and the History of the Climate Crisis","authors":"David Shumway Jones","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919709","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>As global warming became a cause of concern in the 1980s, researchers and climate activists initially paid little attention to the possible health effects of a warmer world. This changed quickly between 1985 and 1989, when scientists working on contracts with the US Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency extrapolated from existing knowledge about the impact of weather on health to speculate about how global warming would impact health. However, they downplayed the impact of their contributions by highlighting the uncertainty in their models and the adaptability of human societies. Since that time, physicians and other health scientists have maintained a steady drumbeat of warnings about the health effects of global warming. They have published widely in the medical literature and participated actively in international scientific collaborations. Their research has significantly increased the breadth and depth of climate-health science and shown that measurable impacts of global warming have already begun. But as the many climate crises of 2023 show, action against global warming remains inadequate. Is it still reasonable to hope that health advocacy will incite communities and politicians to act? The history of climate and health advocacy reveals many obstacles that must be overcome.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"168 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139909943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919712
Donald E. Stanley, Robert Hanna
ABSTRACT:
How does the diagnosis process work? This essay traces the philosophical underpinnings of diagnosis from Hume through Kant, Peirce, and Popper, analyzing how pathologists amalgamate sensibility, intuition, and imagination to form new hypotheses that can be tested by evidence and experience.
{"title":"Diagnosis: What Is the Structure of Its Reasoning?","authors":"Donald E. Stanley, Robert Hanna","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919712","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919712","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>How does the diagnosis process work? This essay traces the philosophical underpinnings of diagnosis from Hume through Kant, Peirce, and Popper, analyzing how pathologists amalgamate sensibility, intuition, and imagination to form new hypotheses that can be tested by evidence and experience.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2024.a919716
Brent M. Kious, Andrew Peterson, Amy L. McGuire
ABSTRACT:
Psychedelic substances have great promise for the treatment of many conditions, and they are the subject of intensive research. As with other medical treatments, both research and clinical use of psychedelics depend on our ability to ensure informed consent by patients and research participants. However, some have argued that informed consent for psychedelic use may be impossible, because psychedelic experiences can be transformative in the sense articulated by L. A. Paul (2014). For Paul, transformative experiences involve either the acquisition of knowledge that cannot be obtained in any other way or changes in the self. Either of these characteristics may appear to undermine informed consent. This article argues, however, that there is limited evidence that psychedelic experiences are transformative in Paul's sense, and that they may not differ in their transformative features from other common medical experiences for which informed consent is clearly possible. Further, even if psychedelic experiences can be transformative, informed consent is still possible. Because psychedelic experiences are importantly different in several respects from other medical experiences, this article closes with recommendations for how these differences should be reflected in informed consent processes.
摘要:迷幻剂在治疗许多疾病方面大有可为,也是深入研究的对象。与其他医疗方法一样,迷幻剂的研究和临床使用都取决于我们能否确保患者和研究参与者的知情同意。然而,有些人认为,使用迷幻药的知情同意可能是不可能的,因为迷幻药体验可能具有 L. A. Paul(2014 年)所阐述的变革性。在保罗看来,转化性体验要么涉及获得其他方式无法获得的知识,要么涉及自我的改变。这些特征中的任何一个似乎都会破坏知情同意。然而,本文认为,只有有限的证据表明迷幻体验在保罗的意义上具有变革性,而且迷幻体验在变革性特征上可能与其他常见的医疗体验并无不同,后者显然可以获得知情同意。此外,即使迷幻体验具有变革性,知情同意仍然是可能的。由于迷幻体验在几个方面与其他医疗体验有着重要的不同,本文最后就如何在知情同意程序中体现这些不同提出了建议。
{"title":"Are Psychedelic Experiences Transformative? Can We Consent to Them?","authors":"Brent M. Kious, Andrew Peterson, Amy L. McGuire","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2024.a919716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919716","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>Psychedelic substances have great promise for the treatment of many conditions, and they are the subject of intensive research. As with other medical treatments, both research and clinical use of psychedelics depend on our ability to ensure informed consent by patients and research participants. However, some have argued that informed consent for psychedelic use may be impossible, because psychedelic experiences can be transformative in the sense articulated by L. A. Paul (2014). For Paul, transformative experiences involve either the acquisition of knowledge that cannot be obtained in any other way or changes in the self. Either of these characteristics may appear to undermine informed consent. This article argues, however, that there is limited evidence that psychedelic experiences are transformative in Paul's sense, and that they may not differ in their transformative features from other common medical experiences for which informed consent is clearly possible. Further, even if psychedelic experiences can be transformative, informed consent is still possible. Because psychedelic experiences are importantly different in several respects from other medical experiences, this article closes with recommendations for how these differences should be reflected in informed consent processes.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139910747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}