Journeying to Ixtlan: Ethics of Psychedelic Medicine and Research for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias

Peterson and colleagues frame their paper by placing contemporary enthusiasm for psychedelic medicine in historical and cultural context, using Carlos Castaneda's Journey to Ixtlan as a cautionary parable about charismatic claims that outpace evidence. They note a renewed scientific and commercial interest in psychedelic compounds alongside lingering regulatory and ethical uncertainties, and emphasise that these uncertainties are especially salient when considering Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD), disorders that progressively erode memory, cognition, and aspects of personal identity and for which disease‑modifying treatments are lacking. The paper sets out to survey the existing landscape of psychedelic research relevant to AD/ADRD and to propose an ethics research agenda. Rather than presenting new empirical data, the authors offer a preliminary analysis organised around six ethical issues they regard as unresolved or magnified in the AD/ADRD context: the effects of psychedelics on autonomy and consent (including concerns about authenticity), ego dissolution in people with pathologies of the self, impacts on caregiving relationships, the risk of exploiting patient desperation, institutional review board (IRB) expertise and protectionism, and strategies to mitigate inequity in research and access.

Across their thematic analysis the authors distinguish two prospective clinical applications of psychedelic compounds for people with AD/ADRD: treating the emotional and existential distress that commonly accompanies diagnosis and illness, and intervening on putative neurobiological mechanisms such as neuroinflammation and network dysfunction. They report that early clinical work is under way—for example, a pilot study enrolling people with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant depression to receive psychological support plus two psilocybin sessions with follow‑up—and they note prior findings in other terminal or treatment‑resistant populations where psychedelic‑assisted therapy produced lasting reductions in anxiety and depression (one cited LSD study reported anxiety reduction in over 75% of participants and broader improvements in about two‑thirds). The authors highlight substantial uncertainties that bear on ethical and methodological choices. One central debate is whether the subjective, hallucinogenic experience is integral to therapeutic benefit or whether non‑hallucinogenic analogues could provide similar effects; this question affects risk profiles, access, cost, and potential for abuse. They argue that psychedelic effects likely depend on a therapeutic ensemble—the drug, psychotherapist, and setting—and that current trials underemphasise how therapist training, who the therapist is, and inclusion of caregivers might shape outcomes. Measurement challenges are also emphasised: standard depression, anxiety, and quality‑of‑life scales may miss transformative or existential changes, so the authors recommend development or adaptation of instruments (for example, measures probing death anxiety or existential concern) and use of qualitative approaches. Regarding safety and disease interaction, the paper discusses how ego dissolution and altered self‑processing produced by some psychedelics could interact with the self‑pathology of dementia. People with Lewy body disease or other dementias already experience hallucinations and reality distortions; psychedelic‑induced perceptual alterations could alleviate or, conversely, compound those phenomena and precipitate acute adverse reactions. For this reason, the authors recommend cautious, staged research that begins with less vulnerable groups (preclinical or mild cognitive impairment) and clinical supervision in trials; they also suggest pursuing biosimilar compounds that do not cause overt hallucinations if subjective phenomenology proves non‑essential. Caregiving dynamics receive extended treatment. The researchers observe that caregivers commonly serve as study partners in AD research, providing proxy information, monitoring safety, and sometimes acting as surrogate decision‑makers. Surrogate consent for psychedelic research raises difficult substituted‑judgement and best‑interests questions, because transformative experiences may alter a participant’s values and future choices. The authors propose considering the patient–caregiver dyad as a unit of interest, exploring psychedelic therapy for caregivers themselves (to address burnout), and developing guidance on how to balance benefits and harms that might accrue differently to patient and caregiver. The paper warns about exploitation driven by patient and family desperation. Examples of over‑hyped commercial claims are discussed, and the authors urge regulators, researchers, and advocacy organisations to counter misleading messaging. They frame the regulatory tension between rapid access and robust evidence in historical terms (for example, accelerated pathways used in other disease contexts) and recommend incorporating patient perspectives without compromising evidentiary standards. Institutional review boards are identified as pivotal actors whose generalist composition risks two errors: under‑appreciation of psychedelic science and attendant stigma leading to unnecessary rejection, or insufficiently calibrated protection that either overprotects or fails to mitigate real harms. The authors call for IRB education on psychedelic science and ethics so that protections are proportionate. Finally, equity concerns are foregrounded: the history of indigenous use has been marginalised in Western accounts, and participation of ethnoracially diverse groups in AD trials is extremely low (the authors note that diverse enrolment in AD/ADRD trials remains less than 5%, and cite an example in which 19 Black participants represented 0.6% of a large Phase III trial). To mitigate injustice they recommend inclusive recruitment practices, fair pricing or licensing to prevent inequitable patenting and access, and engagement with communities currently using psychedelics while avoiding cultural appropriation. Throughout, the authors acknowledge that empirical evidence about efficacy and mechanisms in AD/ADRD is limited and that their treatment is conceptual and agenda‑setting rather than definitive. They offer concrete mitigation strategies that mirror the six ethical foci: limit unsupervised administration, develop non‑hallucinogenic alternatives if feasible, incorporate caregivers into study design, call out predatory industry claims, enable patient voice in regulatory deliberations, and educate IRBs.

The authors conclude by reiterating the six ethical domains that require immediate attention if psychedelic medicine is to be responsibly researched and deployed for people with AD/ADRD: autonomy and consent (including authenticity concerns), interactions between ego dissolution and pathologies of the self, caregiving dynamics, exploitation of desperation, IRB expertise and protectionism, and remedies for inequity. They stress that these issues are amplified in the context of dementia but have broader relevance to psychedelic research. While acknowledging that psychedelics are unlikely to be curative, the paper urges that researchers and clinicians be guided by both rigorous science and an explicit moral compass as the field progresses.