3 ms·
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 int
by superhuzza 7y ago
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.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI 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.
- girvo 7y agoAlthough 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
- heavenlyblue 7y ago>> 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.