ArticleThe oncologist2026
Aspirational autonomy and psychedelic-assisted therapy in advanced cancer: ethical lessons from clinical cases.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) is increasingly discussed as a potential intervention for anxiety, depression, and existential distress among patients with advanced cancer. Yet the ethical challenges of PAT for patients approaching the end of life remain underdeveloped, particularly for oncologists who may be asked to counsel patients or consider referral to clinical trials. This article uses 3 deidentified clinical vignettes from a clinical trial of psilocybin-assisted therapy in a palliative oncology context to examine what it means for PAT to "work." We argue that PAT should not be evaluated only by symptom reduction or the production of mystical experiences, but also by whether it helps patients move toward valued forms of self-understanding, connection, courage, acceptance, or reconciliation. Drawing on the concept of "aspirational autonomy," we propose that meaningful consent to PAT need not depend on full foreknowledge of an unpredictable experience. Rather, consent may be understood as a patient's endorsement of a supported process of moral and existential aspiration. We then identify practical ethical challenges for oncology, including expectation management, therapeutic ambiguity, somatic amplification, limited time for integration, and family dynamics. We conclude by offering candidate-selection considerations for oncologists, emphasizing aspirational clarity, cognitive and psychological stability, temporal feasibility, relational support, and realistic expectations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.