I think they can probably evaluate that. The general pattern is a loosening of rigid characteristics driven by belief. What that means is depends on what you be

I think they can probably evaluate that. The general pattern is a loosening of rigid characteristics driven by belief. What that means is depends on what you believed. If you mostly just believed the world is a terrible place, that's quite a relief. Subjectively, we know that it often feels better, perhaps the way no longer straining or exerting a muscle does...I think it lifts compulsions made of psychological knots rather than from physical causes, but it doesn't distinguish between a compulsion that drove you to physical fitness or alcoholism. So if they find the probable external changes to get that better inner state abhorrent enough, then they should avoid that drug. This works for the lobotomy example as well, if they have their memories in tact from before. You can assume there's a decent chance you'd feel better if others with similar problems felt better, and you have to weigh that against fairly objective external changes which you might find abhorrent, fairly obvious in the case of a lobotomy. Perhaps medical ethics should make a point that the type of changes you could experience should be outlined, but there's a general pattern that I think can be defined and understood enough for informed consent to be given or withheld. Like most medical treatments, it would get defined in terms of risks and probabilities rather than certainties. You risk coming out with weakened religious beliefs, etc.