I agree with the overall concerns made in the beginning, but I find the last piece of this to be slightly or more than slightly confused. First, comments like: 'A lot of the clinicians and investigators in this space come from a culture that might be characterized as hippie, Buddhist, or New Age.' I take offense to. Having been a practicing Buddhist since 1973, I feel like this is a statement that implies Buddhism should be linked with 'Hippie and New Age' and denies the basic sanity of a tradition that purports that all of us share a basic sanity that can emerge when confusion is clarified, be it through psychedelics or any form of therapy. Are you saying in effect that people have the right to their neurotic beliefs at all costs, even when they are the cause of suffering? Or that Catholic, Mormon, Anglican, or Jewish 'investigators should occupy the front row where 'normal' people sit, because, after all, they rule the research world.
You state, "guides have a responsibility to consider the individual needs of participants based on their culture, worldview, and religion." By such logic, couldn't it also be stated that all psychotherapists have an ethical responsibility to avoid anything to do with uprooting or exposing toxic neuroses, as the client has the right to never have their beliefs 'challenged' by anything that might shed light on reality, or suggest anything that could shift a cultural or religious worldview... After all, as we know, cultural and religious worldviews are all accurate reflections of reality, and have little to no impact on how a person feels about themselves or the world, and could never contribute to such minor 'sacred beliefs' as female genital mutilation, just for an obvious example. God forbid that ego should be denied a vote, since sanity is clearly a democracy issue and any exposure to a different view would be a horrendous violation of one's ethical right to imprisonment.
Ethics are hugely important, but I question if you are actually more interested in protecting an archaic model of researching a medicine than in actually helping people who are seeking the kind of seismic change and awakening necessary.
I agree with the overall concerns made in the beginning, but I find the last piece of this to be slightly or more than slightly confused. First, comments like: 'A lot of the clinicians and investigators in this space come from a culture that might be characterized as hippie, Buddhist, or New Age.' I take offense to. Having been a practicing Buddhist since 1973, I feel like this is a statement that implies Buddhism should be linked with 'Hippie and New Age' and denies the basic sanity of a tradition that purports that all of us share a basic sanity that can emerge when confusion is clarified, be it through psychedelics or any form of therapy. Are you saying in effect that people have the right to their neurotic beliefs at all costs, even when they are the cause of suffering? Or that Catholic, Mormon, Anglican, or Jewish 'investigators should occupy the front row where 'normal' people sit, because, after all, they rule the research world.
You state, "guides have a responsibility to consider the individual needs of participants based on their culture, worldview, and religion." By such logic, couldn't it also be stated that all psychotherapists have an ethical responsibility to avoid anything to do with uprooting or exposing toxic neuroses, as the client has the right to never have their beliefs 'challenged' by anything that might shed light on reality, or suggest anything that could shift a cultural or religious worldview... After all, as we know, cultural and religious worldviews are all accurate reflections of reality, and have little to no impact on how a person feels about themselves or the world, and could never contribute to such minor 'sacred beliefs' as female genital mutilation, just for an obvious example. God forbid that ego should be denied a vote, since sanity is clearly a democracy issue and any exposure to a different view would be a horrendous violation of one's ethical right to imprisonment.
Ethics are hugely important, but I question if you are actually more interested in protecting an archaic model of researching a medicine than in actually helping people who are seeking the kind of seismic change and awakening necessary.