The “Third” Eye: Ethics of Video Recording in the Context of Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.082 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".