Self-Experimentations with Psychedelics Among Mental Health Professionals: LSD in the Former Czechoslovakia

Winkler and colleagues conducted a retrospective, interview-based follow-up of mental health professionals who had voluntarily undergone at least one supervised LSD self-experiment in the former Czechoslovakia during the legal research period (1952–1974). Inclusion required the self-experiment to have been voluntary, conducted in a clinical setting under medical supervision, and to have occurred while the participant was a mental health professional or in training. For practical reasons, participants had to reside in the Czech Republic at the time of the study. Potential respondents were identified by searching two professional journals from the former Czechoslovakia and contacting authors of articles on LSD psychotherapy and self-experimentation; these contacts also provided referrals. From 29 eligible individuals identified, 22 agreed to be interviewed (10 psychologists, 11 psychiatrists, and one psychotherapist; five women and 17 men). Participant ages ranged from 59 to 89 years. Data were collected in January 2008 via structured, face-to-face interviews conducted by the first author and a colleague. Interviews lasted 45–60 minutes and used a 30-item open-ended instrument divided into four categories: context/conditions of the LSD session, influence of the experience on the respondent, opinions on professional and lay use of LSD, and reactions to provided quotes about psychedelics. The instrument had been piloted on three subjects and then finalised. A grounded-theory-informed approach allowed conversational flow while ensuring coverage of topics. Transcripts were analysed using open coding aligned with the four interview categories. Two researchers coded the material independently, compared their analyses, and resolved discrepancies to produce the final indexed dataset.

Twenty-two respondents completed interviews; all reported at least one clinically supervised, voluntary LSD self-experiment during the specified era. Most LSD sessions occurred in clinical settings, although three respondents also reported non-clinical use. Professionally, the sample included 10 psychologists, 11 psychiatrists and one psychotherapist; many remained academically active and only four were retired at the time of interview. Reported motivations for participating included curiosity and interest (n = 16), invitation or offer from a colleague or supervisor (n = 9), and an interest in working therapeutically with the substance (n = 4). Doses reported ranged from 25 to 1,000 micrograms of LSD, with 100 micrograms being the most common. Frequency of participation varied: nine respondents reported one or two sessions. Preparation practices were inconsistent: nine respondents said they received no preparatory instruction, and six of those nine independently reviewed the literature beforehand. Fifteen of 22 were instructed to verbalise or discuss the experience after the session to aid integration. A sitter was present for all sessions and, for 82% of respondents, the presence of a sitter was an important condition for feeling secure. Respondents identified other important conditions such as setting, a sense of safety and trust in the sitter, minimal interruptions, and access to clinical staff. Regarding long-term effects, no respondent reported any enduring negative consequences from their self-experiment(s). Twenty of 22 participants reported long-term positive effects either in self-awareness, didactic understanding of mental illness, or both. Nineteen respondents stated that the experience broadened and deepened their self-understanding, and 90% reported that it enhanced their capacity to understand people with mental illness. In terms of professional attitudes, 18 respondents were supportive of using LSD for didactic and auto-gnostic purposes in the mental health field, four had no strong opinion, and all indicated they would accept such use under specific, controlled conditions. However, respondents were cautious about the inevitability of harm: some expressed uncertainty that potential adverse outcomes could be completely eliminated even with careful screening, controlled settings, and supervision.

Winkler and colleagues acknowledge important limitations: the sample represents only a portion of those involved in historic psychedelic research, because many potential participants had died, relocated, or were otherwise unreachable; recall bias is also a concern given interviews asked respondents to reflect on events that occurred 40 or more years earlier. The authors note selective memory as an unavoidable source of bias, even among mental health professionals expected to be self-reflective, but also point out that participants' willingness to recount their experiences suggests those events were meaningful. The researchers interpret their findings as indicating that, for the interviewed clinicians, self-experimentation served multiple roles: a form of professional training for those who would administer psychedelics, a didactic tool to foster empathy and understanding of psychotic or hallucinatory states, and a heuristic aid for research into psychopathology. Respondents also reported personal benefits such as enhanced self-awareness and personal growth. Despite these perceived benefits, there was clear caution about risks; respondents emphasised that LSD sessions required substantial psychological and organisational preparation and that some degree of residual risk might remain even under careful procedures. The authors place these results in the context of contemporary revival in human psychedelic research, noting that modern safety guidelines echo historical safeguards—preparation, trust-building with monitors, a supportive physical environment, and the presence of multiple study monitors. They also observe a relative scarcity of peer-reviewed reporting on clinician self-experiments since the 1990s, which may hinder development of training and safety guidance. The discussion highlights opportunities for future work, including controlled investigation of whether therapist experience with psychedelics affects patient outcomes and reconsideration of the European ‘‘going first’’ tradition whereby clinicians undertake a moderate experience before administering psychedelics to others. The authors recommend further careful analysis of clinician self-experimentation, while cautioning against overstated claims about psychedelics given past tendencies toward sensationalism that contributed to misuse.

Winkler and colleagues conclude that, in the former Czechoslovakia during the era of legal research, many mental health professionals undertook supervised LSD self-experiments which they later judged to be valuable both personally and professionally. Participants reported enrichment such as deeper self-understanding, maturation, and an improved capacity to empathise with and understand people experiencing psychotic or hallucinatory states. No long-term negative effects were reported by respondents, but the authors emphasise that clinical use for didactic purposes should be meticulously prepared and supervised; under specified conditions, all respondents would accept accessibility to LSD for such educational and auto-gnostic aims.