By Tahlia Harrison
As a practicing therapist in Oregon working with complex trauma survivors, I was optimistic at first about the passage in 2020 of Measure 109 and its promise of legalizing psilocybin-assisted therapy. Psilocybin has been shown in small samples to be an effective intervention for many challenges my clients face; I was excited about this option to further support their healing. As a bioethicist and researcher examining topics related to psychedelic-assisted therapy, and a former faculty member at one of the psilocybin facilitation programs, Measure 109 also brought feelings of trepidation and a flood of questions such as: Would my national associations be amenable to this intervention? Would my liability insurance provide coverage? What about the ethics of engaging clients in a treatment involving a federally illegal substance? What about informed consent and other ethical issues? While the current informed consent form used by facilitators does address some aspects of concern (like the use of touch, 333-333-5040 (9)), it does not address other aspects like suggestibility or power dynamics within the facilitator/client relationship. Additionally, the form states “I understand that psilocybin services do not require medical diagnosis or referral and that psilocybin services are not a medical or clinical treatment,” yet it is reported that many are still seeking this as part of treatment for a medical diagnosis. How do multiple licensures apply to understanding scope of practice? Three years later, many of these questions remain unanswered, and the option of offering psilocybin-assisted therapy remains illegal and off the table.
