Disability rights and experiential use of psychedelics in clinical research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the renewed interest in the use of psychedelics for the treatment of mental and substance use disorders in recent decades, there has also been renewed discussion and debate about whether it is necessary or beneficial for those who study and deliver psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) to have had personal experience of using psychedelics. This paper provides a brief history of this debate and brings a disability-rights perspective to the discussion, given increasing efforts to dismantle ableism in medical training, practice, and research. Many psychiatric conditions and psychotropic medications, including ones as commonly prescribed as antidepressants, may preclude one from being able to safely and/or effectively use psychedelics. As such, we argue explicitly mandating or even implying the necessity of experiential training for psychedelic researchers and clinicians can perpetuate ableism in medicine by excluding those who cannot safely use psychedelics because of their personal medical histories. As PAP research and practice rapidly grow, we must ensure the field grows with disability inclusion amongst researchers and clinicians.
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 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 | 0.019 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".