The “Third” Eye: Ethics of Video Recording in the Context of Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of high-profile cases of sexual assault and other unethical conduct by therapists, recent clinical research involving psychedelic drugs has generally mandated the video recording of therapy sessions. In this paper, I address a gap in the literature by investigating ethical issues related to video recording in the unique context of psychedelic therapy sessions. I begin by summarizing the important benefits and risks related to video recording. I then examine ethical concerns about mandatory recording of psychedelic therapy sessions from a patient perspective and argue that these concerns must be taken seriously by clinicians and researchers. I also examine the view that video recording is essential for clinician safety. Given the legitimacy of concerns from both perspectives, I outline some basic informed consent considerations that could generate dialogue around potential patient concerns and defend the option to opt-out for both patients and clinicians. In conclusion, I underscore the importance of further critical bioethical inquiry and qualitative research regarding video recording practices in the context of psychedelic-assisted therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it