Developing an Ethics and Policy Framework for Psychedelic Clinical Care: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: As government agencies around the globe contemplate approval of the first psychedelic medicines, many questions remain about their ethical integration into mainstream medical practice. Objective: To identify key ethics and policy issues related to the eventual integration of psychedelic therapies into clinical practice. Evidence Review: From June 9 to 12, 2023, 27 individuals representing the perspectives of clinicians, researchers, Indigenous groups, industry, philanthropy, veterans, retreat facilitators, training programs, and bioethicists convened at the Banbury Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Prior to the meeting, attendees submitted key ethics and policy issues for psychedelic medicine. Responses were categorized into 6 broad topics: research ethics issues; managing expectations and informed consent; therapeutic ethics; training, education, and licensure of practitioners; equity and access; and appropriate role of gatekeeping. Attendees with relevant expertise presented on each topic, followed by group discussion. Meeting organizers (A.L.M., I.G.C., D.S.) drafted a summary of the discussion and recommendations, noting points of consensus and disagreement, which were discussed and revised as a group. Findings: This consensus statement reports 20 points of consensus across 5 ethical issues (reparations and reciprocity, equity, and respect; informed consent; professional boundaries and physical touch; personal experience; and gatekeeping), with corresponding relevant actors who will be responsible for implementation. Areas for further research and deliberation are also identified. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement focuses on the future of government-approved medical use of psychedelic medicines in the US and abroad. This is an incredibly exciting and hopeful moment, but it is critical that policymakers take seriously the challenges ahead.

Medical Assistance in Dying in Neurology.

An increasing number of jurisdictions have legalized medical assistance in dying (MAID) with significant variation in the procedures and eligibility criteria used. In the United States, MAID is available for persons with terminal illnesses but is frequently sought by persons with neurologic conditions. Persons with conditions that cause cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer dementia, are often ineligible for MAID, as their illness is not considered terminal in its early stages, whereas in later stages, they may have impaired decision-making capacity.

Genetic nondiscrimination and health care as an entitlement.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibits most forms of discrimination on the basis of genetic information in health insurance and employment. The findings cited as justification for the act, the almost universal political support for it, and much of the scholarly literature about genetic discrimination, all betray a confusion about what is really at issue. They imply that genetic discrimination is wrong mainly because of genetic exceptionalism: because some special feature of genetic information makes discrimination on the basis thereof wrong. I suggest, to the contrary, that the best arguments against genetic discrimination assume that health care is an entitlement. I do this by examining two different exceptionalist arguments for genetic nondiscrimination, showing that they do not furnish good reasons for prohibiting genetic discrimination unless one supposes that health care is an entitlement.