Psychedelic therapy has a sexual abuse problem(qz.com)
qz.com
Psychedelic therapy has a sexual abuse problem
https://qz.com/1809184/psychedelic-therapy-has-a-sexual-abuse-problem-3/
14 comments
Damn. This is brutal. She was abused as a child, later raped, then went through hell with psychiatrists, and then (!) Yensen exploited her and her therapist (Yensen's wife) failed her.
We prescribe drugs too casually (South Park's ritalin episode, the current opioid epidemic, young hiphop performers promoting Xanax) and at the same time the war on drugs is still going on, and the "establishment" doesn't really want to accept effective drugs that have "immoral" side-effects (eg. look at the story of how ketamine treatment for severe clinical depression went down, it passed FDA review, but it requires a separate clinic, it uses the "boring" version of the molecule, and thus might not even worth the cost).
That said, yes, every type of therapy has an enormous risk, because people lay their minds bare at someone's feet, expecting help, and this creates a situation with almost the vulnerability as a parent-child relationship. Abuse in these situations is terrible.
The rule of having a second therapist there (or just have a review session every half a year) is [ought to be] common sense. There's too much paperwork for drugs and too little real outside review/control. But that control factor has to be independent of the therapist. (For example in this case it was her husband. WTF. And yes, I know it's important to have someone the therapist can work with well, but that's exactly why it should be the other kind of control, where the patient gets debriefed in a 1-1 session.)
We prescribe drugs too casually (South Park's ritalin episode, the current opioid epidemic, young hiphop performers promoting Xanax) and at the same time the war on drugs is still going on, and the "establishment" doesn't really want to accept effective drugs that have "immoral" side-effects (eg. look at the story of how ketamine treatment for severe clinical depression went down, it passed FDA review, but it requires a separate clinic, it uses the "boring" version of the molecule, and thus might not even worth the cost).
That said, yes, every type of therapy has an enormous risk, because people lay their minds bare at someone's feet, expecting help, and this creates a situation with almost the vulnerability as a parent-child relationship. Abuse in these situations is terrible.
The rule of having a second therapist there (or just have a review session every half a year) is [ought to be] common sense. There's too much paperwork for drugs and too little real outside review/control. But that control factor has to be independent of the therapist. (For example in this case it was her husband. WTF. And yes, I know it's important to have someone the therapist can work with well, but that's exactly why it should be the other kind of control, where the patient gets debriefed in a 1-1 session.)
>We prescribe drugs too casually (South Park's ritalin episode, the current opioid epidemic, young hiphop performers promoting Xanax) and at the same time the war on drugs is still going on, and the "establishment" doesn't really want to accept effective drugs that have "immoral" side-effects (eg. look at the story of how ketamine treatment for severe clinical depression went down, it passed FDA review, but it requires a separate clinic, it uses the "boring" version of the molecule, and thus might not even worth the cost).
I was talking to someone recently about medical marijuana on our state. We have it, but it's supposedly a complex process. He brought up something about "having to exhaust all other treatments for a condition before trying for a medical card". I hope this isn't true, because it seems absolutely irresponsible to prescribe opioids or benzodiazepines for a conditon that could treated with a less dangerous drug.
I was talking to someone recently about medical marijuana on our state. We have it, but it's supposedly a complex process. He brought up something about "having to exhaust all other treatments for a condition before trying for a medical card". I hope this isn't true, because it seems absolutely irresponsible to prescribe opioids or benzodiazepines for a conditon that could treated with a less dangerous drug.
[deleted]
The chemical balance of the brain is extremely complex and there is no way to know of the side effects.
A lot of shootings in America can be linked to previous antidepressants usage for example.
I have the most critical eye towards psychiatry, but your claim about shootings being linked to previous antidepressant use would seem very difficult to prove true.
We would almost expect to see an antidepressants<>shootings correlation:
- mentally unwell people are given drugs
- mentally unwell people shoot other people.
That isn't causation.
We would almost expect to see an antidepressants<>shootings correlation:
- mentally unwell people are given drugs
- mentally unwell people shoot other people.
That isn't causation.
There are plenty of studies where antidepressants are linked with increased aggression and violent behavior.
Our brain is so complicated that what we call mental illness (e.g. depression, schizophrenia etc) usually is umbrella of different illnesses with different reasons with somewhat similar symptoms that are diagnosed under one label. That's why for one person one antidepresant is helpful, for another one different one. For some no drugs can help. He might also be depressed because he already has non-diagnosed cancer (one of cancer symptoms) or is poisoned with heavy metals. Or maybe something completely else. And it makes no surprise that if you throw antidepressants at someone who will react violently to it because of his current brain chemistry bad things will happen. Guns were available for long time in USA, would be interesting to see how antidepressant usage growth correlates with number of mass shootings over last 100 years...
Here is also interesting excerpt from the book "Nutrient Power: Heal Your Biochemistry and Heal Your Brain":
Most of the school shooters exhibited a unique and unusual history, compared to the thousands of behavior-disordered persons we have studied. A major difference is the absence of violent behaviors until the teen years, and many cases of excellent academics. Typically, the school shooters developed anxiety and depression after puberty and were treated with SSRI antidepressants. These drugs have helped millions of persons, but psychiatrists have known for years that a rare side effect involves development of suicidal ideation and in some cases homicidal tendencies. There is considerable published literature that indicates young males are especially at risk for this side effect. More than 90% of the school shooters we studied were treated with SSRI medications.
Mainstream psychiatry’s “treatment of choice” for depression is use of SSRI antidepressants aimed at increasing serotonin activity in the brain, perhaps coupled with counseling. However, as described in Chapter 6, depression is not a single condition but an umbrella term that encompasses several quite different disorders. Figure 6-3 shows the five major biochemical types of depression, including a low-folate phenotype that is associated with intolerance to SSRI medications. It seems likely that most school shooters had the low-folate form of depression and experienced an adverse reaction to antidepressant treatment.
These persons respond better to benzodiazepine medications, and also benefit from nutrient therapy to elevate folate levels. Another danger of antidepressant drugs is sudden non-compliance. There are several cases of school shootings in which the crime occurred soon after the offender stopped SSRI medication.
Recommendation: Doctors should perform blood tests prior to prescribing SSRI antidepressants for young males. Inexpensive blood testing for histamine, serum folate, and/or SAMe/SAH ratio can efficiently identify persons at risk for suicidal or homicidal ideation following use of SSRI antidepressants.
Here is also interesting excerpt from the book "Nutrient Power: Heal Your Biochemistry and Heal Your Brain":
Most of the school shooters exhibited a unique and unusual history, compared to the thousands of behavior-disordered persons we have studied. A major difference is the absence of violent behaviors until the teen years, and many cases of excellent academics. Typically, the school shooters developed anxiety and depression after puberty and were treated with SSRI antidepressants. These drugs have helped millions of persons, but psychiatrists have known for years that a rare side effect involves development of suicidal ideation and in some cases homicidal tendencies. There is considerable published literature that indicates young males are especially at risk for this side effect. More than 90% of the school shooters we studied were treated with SSRI medications.
Mainstream psychiatry’s “treatment of choice” for depression is use of SSRI antidepressants aimed at increasing serotonin activity in the brain, perhaps coupled with counseling. However, as described in Chapter 6, depression is not a single condition but an umbrella term that encompasses several quite different disorders. Figure 6-3 shows the five major biochemical types of depression, including a low-folate phenotype that is associated with intolerance to SSRI medications. It seems likely that most school shooters had the low-folate form of depression and experienced an adverse reaction to antidepressant treatment.
These persons respond better to benzodiazepine medications, and also benefit from nutrient therapy to elevate folate levels. Another danger of antidepressant drugs is sudden non-compliance. There are several cases of school shootings in which the crime occurred soon after the offender stopped SSRI medication.
Recommendation: Doctors should perform blood tests prior to prescribing SSRI antidepressants for young males. Inexpensive blood testing for histamine, serum folate, and/or SAMe/SAH ratio can efficiently identify persons at risk for suicidal or homicidal ideation following use of SSRI antidepressants.
[deleted]
0x8BADF00D(4)
This comment is enlightened.
We've tried every drug we have and they all made the problems worse, but don't worry, we've got a new drug coming that will fix all of those problems. Ask your doctor about it.
[deleted]
The problem with restricting (psychedelic) therapy to supervised, one-on-one clinical settings is that these places by their nature cannot provide experiences, intimate connections and understanding that are necessary for self-discovery, -healing and -improvement.
The transactional institution that doctors, therapists and mental health hospitals represent can only provide a foundation and safe environment for such opportunities.
Talking to people who have or had similar life experiences, who truly know how the pain one suffers feels and what it means to live that way from the inside is of the highest value.
The transactional institution that doctors, therapists and mental health hospitals represent can only provide a foundation and safe environment for such opportunities.
Talking to people who have or had similar life experiences, who truly know how the pain one suffers feels and what it means to live that way from the inside is of the highest value.
Understanding? Maybe. Intimate connections? Who knows. Also, it seems very effective[0] for PTSD. Sure, it can't give you amazing friends to go through life with, or experiences of fantastic sensations as the sun comes up while you are having a blast.
But the basics are important too. Knowing yourself, talking about your problems, analyzing them, your life, etc.
[0] https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/584a381a8419c2... - just a random image to illustrate the effectiveness.
But the basics are important too. Knowing yourself, talking about your problems, analyzing them, your life, etc.
[0] https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/584a381a8419c2... - just a random image to illustrate the effectiveness.
Taking psychedelics in a therapy setting is even more risky than off-label prescription itself. The patient may think there is little risk but there is a chance of making the condition worse.
Sources? Data? Evidence? Studies? Citations please. This is a very strong claim!
And I'm saying this because my gut feeling sort of agrees with you, but so far MAPS' FDA approved studies doesn't seem indicate that there's this risk factor.
Who knows what will happen if it hits mainstream though. (As with any other therapies, at first everything is magical, because truly motivated people practice them, then it just becomes something done by certified professionals, then it just becomes a big section in a regular textbook.)
That said, there is very good chance that even if it's risky, it has at least the potential to do real work. ( https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/26/mental-mountains/ )
And I'm saying this because my gut feeling sort of agrees with you, but so far MAPS' FDA approved studies doesn't seem indicate that there's this risk factor.
Who knows what will happen if it hits mainstream though. (As with any other therapies, at first everything is magical, because truly motivated people practice them, then it just becomes something done by certified professionals, then it just becomes a big section in a regular textbook.)
That said, there is very good chance that even if it's risky, it has at least the potential to do real work. ( https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/26/mental-mountains/ )
This is an interesting take on things. Are you saying that you can't heal/grow/improve by means of talking to someone who hasn't had the same (negative?) experiences as you? Or are you suggesting the lack of intimacy is the detrimental factor?
I'm not an expert on intimacy by any means, but I think there's a difference between "feeling understood" and "being understood", and the former strikes me as being the more important of the two.
I'm not an expert on intimacy by any means, but I think there's a difference between "feeling understood" and "being understood", and the former strikes me as being the more important of the two.
Psychotherapy is mostly about achieving an internal perspective change and being able to apply that continually mentally and through interactions in relationships with others.
Not that this is impossible to achieve with a therapist (especially if they are experienced), but when they never had ones own perspective, communicating, actually being and feeling understood and achieving that change can be difficult.
If only feeling understood mattered, one might as well talk to a a pet or an inanimate object, say your favorite plushy.
When one thinks of psychotherapy, typically an image of the "client" lying on a couch, talking to a psychologist, taking notes, comes to mind. Most of psychotherapy is language (conversation) oriented, but there are many other modes of sensation, being and action. So one shouldn't restrict oneself conceptually to considering only these two-person, fixed-place, conversational/analytical interactions as 'true' psychotherapy.
Not that this is impossible to achieve with a therapist (especially if they are experienced), but when they never had ones own perspective, communicating, actually being and feeling understood and achieving that change can be difficult.
If only feeling understood mattered, one might as well talk to a a pet or an inanimate object, say your favorite plushy.
When one thinks of psychotherapy, typically an image of the "client" lying on a couch, talking to a psychologist, taking notes, comes to mind. Most of psychotherapy is language (conversation) oriented, but there are many other modes of sensation, being and action. So one shouldn't restrict oneself conceptually to considering only these two-person, fixed-place, conversational/analytical interactions as 'true' psychotherapy.
Completely agree. While I'm very, very much in favor of psychedelics as therapy aid, the idea of therapist-guided trips is extremely offputting. At best it will Disney-fy the whole experience, at worst create far more problems.
Just for an alternate perspective, there's a therapist I'd completely trust to be my guide. I certainly wouldn't expect a Disney experience.
[deleted]
If the argument is based on a few anecdotes with no comparative data (like to other mental health services or other forms of psychotherapy) it doesn't hold much weight. I could say that startups have a sexual abuse problem. Therapy has risks as the relationship between the therapist and patient evolves and treatment progresses. I would like to see more data. In the meantime, the be aware that the potential is there (just ask Dr Phil).
Yeah, anecdotes aren't altogether useful, but I'm also trying to picture the scenario where a lack of comparative data makes anyone think it's not a big deal.
It might be a big deal, but the author wants to convince us that it's bigger than other forms of therapy. I take it as a possibility, but it has a low degree of certainty until I see more evidence.
It reads like a deliberate attack on MAPS and a truckload of more general FUD about using certain drugs.
It might be mere one-sided excessive attention to one case, with one therapist, in one clinical trial (failing to see the big picture, which is attempting to find a good therapy for PTSD) but the impression of dishonest bias and of some hidden agenda (competitors?) is quite strong.
Anecdote time. I had a psychedelic experience not that long ago with professional guides in a place where it's legal. At some point when tripping I became very aroused. I felt like I would agree to any suggestion of intimacy at this point. I was still aware of it, but it took a lot of self discipline not to initiate improper contact with my guides myself.
The whole guided trip was an amazing experience and I am glad I have done it. Guides were very professional and made me feel safe. However, the potential for sexual misconduct on both sides is something that is not really being talked about, but needs to be addressed.
The whole guided trip was an amazing experience and I am glad I have done it. Guides were very professional and made me feel safe. However, the potential for sexual misconduct on both sides is something that is not really being talked about, but needs to be addressed.
I never considered MDMA a psychedelic when I compare it to magic mushrooms. So I looked it up to see why other people do consider it a psychedelic.
Since this article talks about MAPS, here is a MAPS source on explaining it [1].
So it's a mild psychedelic at best and not a psychedelic at worst (excuse my English, non-native, not an intended value judgement).
And the truth probably is that the word psychedelic is used for attention grabbing purposes only. I get that, but I do want to make that clear.
I'm simply summarizing the source.
[1] https://maps.org/news/multimedia-library/5545-mdma-the-movie...
Since this article talks about MAPS, here is a MAPS source on explaining it [1].
So it's a mild psychedelic at best and not a psychedelic at worst (excuse my English, non-native, not an intended value judgement).
And the truth probably is that the word psychedelic is used for attention grabbing purposes only. I get that, but I do want to make that clear.
I'm simply summarizing the source.
[1] https://maps.org/news/multimedia-library/5545-mdma-the-movie...
> So it's a mild psychedelic at best and not a psychedelic at worst (excuse my English, non-native, not an intended value judgement).
"at most" and "at least" would work and be more neutral.
"at most" and "at least" would work and be more neutral.
Thanks, I can't edit it anymore unfortunately, but I appreciate the tidbit of knowledge that was escaping me the whole time.
From personal experience, subjectively speaking, large doses of MDMA are psychedelic in very much the same way as the classic psychedelics like mushrooms and LSD.
It's a subtle effect, dominated by the stimulant and empathogenic effects, but it's decidedly there, especially when you close your eyes.
I suspect such doses are well beyond what's used in therapy though.
It's a subtle effect, dominated by the stimulant and empathogenic effects, but it's decidedly there, especially when you close your eyes.
I suspect such doses are well beyond what's used in therapy though.
> especially when you close your eyes
Hmm... I forgot about that part. I remember having super vivid memories basically as strong as lucid dreaming.
Hmm... I forgot about that part. I remember having super vivid memories basically as strong as lucid dreaming.
From what I learned (no personal experiences) the MDMA wouldn't be suitable for any kind of therapy? It makes for few hours of energetic ecstasy followed by few hours of lethargic depression. Without psychedelic effect on patient what is there to work with?
You're probably speaking of an extasy pill (which is often mixed with other stuff etc), not crystallic MDMA. Set and setting does a lot as well. MDMA can be a very powerful psychedelic (personal experience).
Does normal psychotherapy not have an abuse problem? I'm pretty sure inappropriate relationships between doctor and patient have formed in traditional settings. Is there an indication that it happens more often when psychedelics are involved, or is this just one more way to malign them?
The article talks about this. Relationships between licensed therapists and clients are strictly regulated, but not everyone practicing psychedelic therapy is a licensed therapist who would be subject to these regulations.
To illuminate this further. During therapy two people(usually one male one female) are required to be present to reduce the risks of something bad happening. But only one is required to have a license. And in this specific scenario though the person she had the sexual relations with was the unlicensed individual.
To be fair it does seem like a stupid mistake of the system, not something inherently bad about it
Are those two people required to be sober?
> Lily Kay Ross said she felt compelled to leave work in psychedelics after she spoke out about her rape by an ayahuasca shaman in the Amazon. “I was told explicitly that I might single-handedly re-instigate the war on drugs and undo all of the advancements in the field of psychedelic research since the 1960s,” she said. “There’s the idea that psychedelics are so important and so wonderful that the train has to keep going. We can’t slow down to get the rapists off the train.”
Interestingly, this is sort of homomorphic to the viewpoint that drove George Orwell to write Animal Farm. There the belief was you shouldn't point out the flaws in the USSR because you might set socialism (a desirable ideology to his associates) back some amount of time.
It's sort of an interesting view. I, for one, want most of these drugs made available to me easily. I'd like to have trusted MDMA or LSD, purely for recreational purposes. But there's no way I want that to come with the baggage of abusive therapists and all that crap. It's absolutely unacceptable that we can put people in positions where other people are exploiting them. And I think we should make these things just as public as they deserve precisely because of what they are and what they say about how we do things.
Essentially, I think this trickle-down illegal->medicinal->legal route is just ripe for abuse since you're giving too much power to the people who can let you have the thing. I wish there were an 'accredited investor' for drugs. Most people are unable to handle drugs. But I'm different. I've used. I've gone half a decade without using. I've used again. And I'm healthy by any metric you could consider.
Interestingly, this is sort of homomorphic to the viewpoint that drove George Orwell to write Animal Farm. There the belief was you shouldn't point out the flaws in the USSR because you might set socialism (a desirable ideology to his associates) back some amount of time.
It's sort of an interesting view. I, for one, want most of these drugs made available to me easily. I'd like to have trusted MDMA or LSD, purely for recreational purposes. But there's no way I want that to come with the baggage of abusive therapists and all that crap. It's absolutely unacceptable that we can put people in positions where other people are exploiting them. And I think we should make these things just as public as they deserve precisely because of what they are and what they say about how we do things.
Essentially, I think this trickle-down illegal->medicinal->legal route is just ripe for abuse since you're giving too much power to the people who can let you have the thing. I wish there were an 'accredited investor' for drugs. Most people are unable to handle drugs. But I'm different. I've used. I've gone half a decade without using. I've used again. And I'm healthy by any metric you could consider.
I agree. Also, if you're not dealing with accusations the proper way, you're looking like a cult. If you're going to suggest using psychedelics in a therapy settings and a side note is "oh yeah and we don't report rapes because that could set back our efforts", you're really just showing terrible judgement and that you have no business being anywhere in a medical profession.
On the contrary: being professional and transparent, removing bad actors will be a good approach. You won't convince anyone that's against psychedelics on principle, but you also won't turn anyone away by dealing with rape accusations like every group should. Granted, it's should, there are very few communities where that ever happens, it's mostly about how powerful the victim and the perpetrator are.
I like the idea of accredited user, but it's hard to decide. With investors, you can look at account statements and say "okay, crossed the threshold, thanks". For personal stability, that's a very different and much more complicated issue where you'd hand whoever decides a lot of power.
I do think we should have legal drugs anyhow, the harm reduction alone is worth it.
On the contrary: being professional and transparent, removing bad actors will be a good approach. You won't convince anyone that's against psychedelics on principle, but you also won't turn anyone away by dealing with rape accusations like every group should. Granted, it's should, there are very few communities where that ever happens, it's mostly about how powerful the victim and the perpetrator are.
I like the idea of accredited user, but it's hard to decide. With investors, you can look at account statements and say "okay, crossed the threshold, thanks". For personal stability, that's a very different and much more complicated issue where you'd hand whoever decides a lot of power.
I do think we should have legal drugs anyhow, the harm reduction alone is worth it.
To be honest, my desire for the use is mostly driven by self-interest: I enjoy using and can clearly responsibly use so I don't want to be held back by the incapable.
To that end, I think I'm willing to accept it as "pay into this insurance fund that will cover you if you need care" so that you remove the societal cost that you impose and then when you legalize you remove the externalities like the drug lords and all that.
To that end, I think I'm willing to accept it as "pay into this insurance fund that will cover you if you need care" so that you remove the societal cost that you impose and then when you legalize you remove the externalities like the drug lords and all that.
Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way. Also Hollywood.
> Is the Catholic Church a cult? It's well known for not dealing either rape in a proper way.
And I assume they do so for very similar reasons. The difference between a church and a cult is its size & power, if you're large enough, you become a church and then a religion. If you're small, you're a cult that believes in obviously imaginary stuff.
I don't think we should have the Pope or some Hollywood star in charge of medical treatments, and everyone should be skeptical if musicians promise them a cure for cancer as well.
And I assume they do so for very similar reasons. The difference between a church and a cult is its size & power, if you're large enough, you become a church and then a religion. If you're small, you're a cult that believes in obviously imaginary stuff.
I don't think we should have the Pope or some Hollywood star in charge of medical treatments, and everyone should be skeptical if musicians promise them a cure for cancer as well.
I've always said, give someone the psychedelics and a safe place to be, but let them be on their own. Lots of travelling to do, no need to stay tethered to this realm by having to converse with a therapist.
That's probably not the best way to work with MDMA, which is useful for exploring relational issues, and which is mostly what the article talks about.
I don't see how MDMA can be useful for exploring relational issues. It's primarily a controller of emotion and mood, not a psychedelic.
So all it's going to do at best is make a client artificially imprint on the therapist - because the client would experience intense emotional closeness after it was administered, followed by a real downer after the session.
I'd consider that abusive by definition. It's certainly not going to have the much broader and risky but potentially more productive ego softening effect of real psychedelics, which would focus much less on the therapist and more on the client's interior world.
So all it's going to do at best is make a client artificially imprint on the therapist - because the client would experience intense emotional closeness after it was administered, followed by a real downer after the session.
I'd consider that abusive by definition. It's certainly not going to have the much broader and risky but potentially more productive ego softening effect of real psychedelics, which would focus much less on the therapist and more on the client's interior world.
Relationships are built on emotion.
[deleted]
Sounds like you've not been around someone who is having a bad trip, it's traumatic. I've been around some and had to play caretaker till they came down.
A bad trip on MDMA? I've never heard anyone express that they had anything like the classic LSD "bad trip" on MDMA. It's just not especially psychedelic in that way, and broadly speaking, it's a stimulant that makes your body feel really intensely good.
The OP is using MDMA. I don't think anyone on MDMA wants to be by themselves. I've actually never met anyone like that.
Wait, is the person making the accusations the same Meaghan Buisson who has held world records in inline speed skating. Wow.
[deleted]
Mdma is such that you can take it with pretty much anyone and work out your trauma issues. You don’t need a therapist.
MDMA can also kill you outright (by means of heart attack) if you have any underlying heart conditions. Be safe and don't randomly take drugs in the hope that they will help you with your trauma issues. See a therapist.
I think a more relevant headline would be "Situations with a power differential have a sexual abuse problem". This applies to teacher/student, boss/employee, therapist/patient, parent/child and many other situations.
Yeah but that’s not as good of a headline /s
People should be careful about scapegoating a drug or technique, but this headline reminds me of another thing that worries me.
People seem unnaturally enthused about low dose ketamine recently, in mental health circles. I can't help thinking, that it has the potential for something kind of similar to the opioid crisis. It may be too paranoid, but I sometimes imagine there are forces in the shadows that want this, because having lots of legitimate prescriptions out there would make it easier to victimize people.
People seem unnaturally enthused about low dose ketamine recently, in mental health circles. I can't help thinking, that it has the potential for something kind of similar to the opioid crisis. It may be too paranoid, but I sometimes imagine there are forces in the shadows that want this, because having lots of legitimate prescriptions out there would make it easier to victimize people.
As someone whose been on low dose ketamine for over a year, I don't think this is a relevant concern. Or that the enthusiasm is unwarranted.
The intoxication involved is slightly more than a couple of beers. It's not habit forming, apart from being profoundly effective.
The intoxication involved is slightly more than a couple of beers. It's not habit forming, apart from being profoundly effective.
"The intoxication involved is slightly more than a couple of beers. It's not habit forming, apart from being profoundly effective.
"
Some people get addicted to alcohol, some to opioids, some to chocolate so it wouldn't be surprising if Ketamine filled spot for some people. This shouldn't stop us from using it though.
Some people get addicted to alcohol, some to opioids, some to chocolate so it wouldn't be surprising if Ketamine filled spot for some people. This shouldn't stop us from using it though.
Alcohol and opiates/opioids both build physical dependence on them. This is markedly difference to “chocolate addiction”, and ketamine does not cause physical dependence either.
Compulsive behaviour with regards to a stimulus isn’t addiction on its own, but it is bad!
Compulsive behaviour with regards to a stimulus isn’t addiction on its own, but it is bad!
Specifically, addiction is a disease where people cannot self-moderate or reduce use despite actual harm to themselves. Chronic use, without harm, is not addiction.
How many people would get addicted to alcohol if they never had more than 2-3 beers in a session? Because I don't expect many people to over-dose their prescription before they get addicted.
"It's not habit forming"
Maybe not. I wasn't expressing any concern about that.
Maybe not. I wasn't expressing any concern about that.
>It may be too paranoid, but I sometimes imagine there are forces in the shadows that want this, because having lots of legitimate prescriptions out there would make it easier to victimize people
Who would organize/benefit such a conspiracy? The opioid epidemic was brought on by pharmaceutical corporations trying to make more money, while ketamine is likely already available as a generic that won't make anyone rich.
Being able to imagine some way this could be a scam isn't enough. Some kind of evidence us needed as if you're wrong, people will continue to suffer without the help they need.
Who would organize/benefit such a conspiracy? The opioid epidemic was brought on by pharmaceutical corporations trying to make more money, while ketamine is likely already available as a generic that won't make anyone rich.
Being able to imagine some way this could be a scam isn't enough. Some kind of evidence us needed as if you're wrong, people will continue to suffer without the help they need.
It has no potential to be anything like the opioid crisis. It's virtually impossible to find any case of ketamine causing a fatality from its administration.
That's true, but it doesn't make this article (or headline) irrelevant. There's relevance in discussion the situation in different contexts.
I kind of doubt you even opened the article...
1. The article specifically details why psychedelics are a relevant factor (because the patient is literally intoxicated, which is not usual in therapy).
2. The author acknowledges and addresses the fact that abuse happens in other forms of therapy, but notes that there are specific, relevant differences. For example, the protections offered by traditional therapy vs psychedelic therapy (trials including non-licensed 'therapists', the illegality of non-approved sessions etc.)
3. Not all of those situations are at all the same. There are different considerations when it's teachers/students, boss/employees etc. If you generalize enough, there's no difference between a human and a chimpanzee - it's all about the desired level of investigation.
1. The article specifically details why psychedelics are a relevant factor (because the patient is literally intoxicated, which is not usual in therapy).
2. The author acknowledges and addresses the fact that abuse happens in other forms of therapy, but notes that there are specific, relevant differences. For example, the protections offered by traditional therapy vs psychedelic therapy (trials including non-licensed 'therapists', the illegality of non-approved sessions etc.)
3. Not all of those situations are at all the same. There are different considerations when it's teachers/students, boss/employees etc. If you generalize enough, there's no difference between a human and a chimpanzee - it's all about the desired level of investigation.
Although the specific case in the article goes back and forward as to whether the alleged sexual abuse happened during the psychedelic sessions. MAPS says yes, the court filing says maybe, unless I’m reading it wrong? It’s damned plausible, though
>> For example, the protections offered by traditional therapy vs psychedelic therapy (trials including non-licensed 'therapists', the illegality of non-approved sessions etc.)
I think you’re conflating two different issues here.
I think you’re conflating two different issues here.
I have read the article bur I don't see much of a difference. There are some specific factors to psychedelics but overall it's the lack of discipline by the practitioner that's the real problem.
I thought this was going to be about the opposite: a study on the use of psychedelics to treat patients with PTSD caused by sexual abuse. Too bad.
Ok, we've restored the article title. I had briefly changed it to "Psychedelic therapy and sexual abuse" as a way of making it less baity, but you're right that it's misleading.
A doctor abused his position, therefore all of psychedelic therapy has a sexual abuse problem.
Quartz needs a new editor.
Quartz needs a new editor.
http://psychwatch.blogspot.com/2014/11/this-woman-went-on-to...
It is by the patient leveling these accusations. It paints an excellent picture concerning why I hate the "junkies and crazies" explanation for homelessness. Her care providers doped her to the gills to allegedly try to fix her while not really doing anything to help her.
If she had taken that much medication by choice without a prescription, she would be called a junkie. Defying her doctors to get off the drugs got her called delusional and accused of oppositional defiant disorder.
Prior to reading the above, I had a different line of thought in mind for commenting here. Sexual situations are incredibly complex and I generally dislike the way discussions of them typically go. In this case, I will suggest that's sort of the least of the issue. The amount of drugs she was on was potentially life threatening and I'm horrified we are only reading about this because her therapist had a sexual relationship with her.
We prescribe drugs too casually and pass out the label "junkie" too cavalierly. If you seek help for your problems and they don't really help you, they just dope you to the gills instead, is it any wonder we have a drug epidemic going on in the US?