Psychedelic injustice: should bioethics tune in to the voices of psychedelic-using communities?

The paper argues that psychedelic‑using communities should be included in bioethical discussions guiding the medicalisation of psychedelics because their embodied experience gives them epistemic expertise and they are disproportionately affected by medicalisation. Even acknowledging claims that such groups may be less able to engage in deliberative reasoning, the author contends they must be consulted to redress and prevent epistemic injustice.

Authors

  • McMillan, R.

Published

Medical Humanities
individual Study

Abstract

Psychedelic compounds are regaining widespread interest due to emerging evidence surrounding their therapeutic effects. The controversial nature of these compounds highlights the need for extensive bioethical input to guide the process of medicalisation. To date there is no bioethics literature that consults the voices of psychedelic-using communities in order to help guide normative considerations of psychedelic medicalisation. In this paper I argue that psychedelic-using communities ought to be included in bioethical discussions that guide normative elements of psychedelic medicalisation. I argue this by presenting two points. First, psychedelic-using communities hold a degree of epistemic expertise regarding psychedelics by virtue of their embodied experiences with these compounds. Therefore, these communities are able to identify normative considerations that communities without embodied experiences would overlook. Second, psychedelic-using communities are uniquely and heavily affected by psychedelic medicalisation. Therefore, the needs of these communities ought to be considered when evaluating and implementing normative changes that alter psychedelic usage in society. The counterargument that psychedelic-using communities should not guide normative considerations of psychedelic medicalisation is presented by highlighting empirical data that suggest groups of the public with embodied experiences regarding a topic are less able to engage in deliberative reasoning on the said topic than the lay public. However, I propose that even if this is the case, psychedelic-using communities are owed consultation by agents of psychedelic medicalisation in order to undo and cease perpetuating epistemic injustice against these communities.

Available with Blossom Pro

Research Summary of 'Psychedelic injustice: should bioethics tune in to the voices of psychedelic-using communities?'

Introduction

Mcmillan frames the paper around a renewed scientific and public interest in psychedelic compounds and the contentious nature of their therapeutic use. Earlier bioethics literature is emerging but, according to the author, has largely omitted direct consultation with psychedelic-using communities despite lively normative discussions occurring in public forums run by those communities. This omission raises concerns about epistemic harms and the legitimacy of normative decisions that shape psychedelic medicalisation. The study sets out to argue that psychedelic-using communities ought to be included in bioethical deliberations that guide the medicalisation of psychedelics. Mcmillan advances two main claims: first, that these communities possess a form of epistemic expertise derived from lived experience; and second, that they are uniquely and heavily affected by medicalisation and therefore have a legitimate stake in normative decisions. The paper also presents and responds to a key counterargument—that affected groups may be epistemically limited in deliberative reasoning—and concludes that consultation is owed to these communities in order to redress testimonial injustice and inform fair policy-making.

Expert Research Summaries

Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.

Study Details

  • Study Type
    individual
  • Journal
  • APA Citation

    Miceli McMillan, R. (2022). Psychedelic injustice: should bioethics tune in to the voices of psychedelic-using communities?. Medical Humanities, 48(3), 269-272. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2021-012299

References (2)

Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom

Cited By (1)

Papers in Blossom that reference this study

Psychedelic Identity Shift: A Critical Approach to Set And Setting

Devenot, N., Seale-Feldman, A., Smith, E. et al. · Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (2022)

28 cited

Your Personal Research Library

Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.