Critical Therapy Antidote

Preserving the Healing Ethos of Therapy

The Politics and Ethics of Psychedelics in Psychotherapy

May 3, 2026

1–2 minutes

On 18 April 2026, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that aims to accelerate the development and review of psychedelic drugs as treatments for serious mental health conditions such as PTSD, depression, and addiction. This order directs federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services to fast-track regulatory pathways for qualifying breakthrough therapies. These efforts focus on expanding research and review processes for substances beyond currently used ketamine-assisted treatments, including psilocybin, methylone, and ibogaine.

In a collaborative initiative, Leslie Elliott-Boyce of Radical Centre and CTA co-directors Michael Olan and Jaco van Zyl explore the politics and ethics of psychedelics with Karen King. Fellow CTA members will be familiar with Karen, who is an experienced psychotherapist, clinical supervisor and trainer, specialising in ketamine-assisted psychotherapy and psychedelic integration.

In this discussion, the interlocutors explore the current state of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy and how it is regulated in the United States at both federal and state levels. They consider what this executive order is aiming to achieve and the implications it may have for this specialised area of psychotherapy. They examine concerns about the influence of Critical Social Justice perspectives on the field and the potential corrupting impact of such frameworks on its development. Karen explains what psychedelic-assisted therapy involves, its potential benefits, and who might typically seek this form of treatment. The discussion also considers how this approach to therapy may be compatible with a range of worldviews that include an appreciation for the mystical, including monotheistic religious traditions.

2 responses to “The Politics and Ethics of Psychedelics in Psychotherapy”

Karl

May 12, 2026 at 7:06 am

It is really good to see the psychedelic field increasingly explored through a CTA lens. Having worked (legally) within this area for a few years, I have repeatedly encountered the oppressor–oppressed polarity araising within the culture itself. This extends beyond the often cited indigenous–Western polarity, as though many in the scene have forgotten ideas such as the condor–eagle prophecy, which speaks to different worlds coming together in a way that strengthens both.

What has struck me even more strongly, however, is the intensity of the female–male polarity that can emerge in some psychedelic spaces. At times, this moves beyond a critique of historical power imbalances into an atmosphere where men are implicitly regarded as unwelcome or undesirable.

Recently, colleagues presented a view held in some settings that, when two therapists are present during dosing sessions, the ideal arrangement is one female and one male therapist, symbolically reflecting mother and father. Yet where this is not possible, it is apparently considered undesirable to have two male therapists present, whereas two female therapists are seen as entirely acceptable. One female colleague explicitly stated that, as a woman, she would not want two male therapists present.

What is striking in these discussions is how little space is given to the voices of those actually undergoing dosing. In practice, there are female clients who feel entirely safe and well-supported with two male therapists. Yet, their perspectives are often absent from the conversation, while assumptions about safety and appropriateness are made on their behalf.

Compounding this difficulty is the fact that a significant number of psychotherapists entering the psychedelic field are still relatively inexperienced — whether in terms of clinical hours, exposure to complex presentations, or sustained work with severe and challenging mental health difficulties. This can create environments in which ideological certainty develops more quickly than clinical depth or reflective capacity.

Loading…

Reply
Karen King

June 23, 2026 at 5:15 pm

Karl, I am so glad you brought this important issue up. To be honest, it is not something I have even considered but can see is a very accurate portrayal of the default positioning that the new “victim mindset” has done to male therapists in a therapy context. It assumes some sort of transgression simply because of the sex of the therapist. (Of course, when applied conversely to the bathroom debate, the crowd that positions men does not apply that same assumption.) I think it is so important to point out these assumptions and so glad you did so here. There are so many implications of this as I think about it- the assumption that humanity is fragile, that can’t speak for itself and cannot have a preference based on resilience or experience. The label becomes the threat itself. So like Douglas Murray so often says, the topic can never be discussed because the very questioning of the topic is not allowed. I see that with the popular cultural inaccurate view of men and their perceived threat and lack of value. Thanks for dialoguing about this.

Loading…

Reply