The topic is Clinical uses for illicit substances

· Updated on December 11, 2025

Part 1
The topic is Clinical uses for illicit substances (e.g., medical marijuana, MDMA for PTSD)
Respond
 to the following in a 300-word paragraph:
Take a position on the topic and include evidence to support your position.
Explain
 why you agree or disagree with the stance and 
provide
 citations or evidence to support it. Be constructive and professional in your responses.
Part 2
Summarize
 the decision-making model you employed and the process used to arrive at your position.
Review 
the following resource if you need additional information about ethical decision-making models:
“An Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Model for Nurses“
Cite
 at least 3 peer-reviewed sources published within the last 5 years that support your positions.

Include
 an APA-formatted reference list.

Paper For Above Instructions

Part 1 – Position on Clinical Uses of Illicit Substances (≈300 words)

I support cautiously expanding the clinical use of some formerly illicit substances—such as medical cannabis and MDMA or psilocybin-assisted therapy—only within tightly regulated, evidence-based frameworks. Recent phase 3 data show that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly reduces PTSD symptoms and functional impairment compared with psychotherapy plus placebo, with more than 70% of participants no longer meeting PTSD criteria by study end. Nature+1 Systematic reviews and trials of psilocybin-assisted therapy report large, rapid and sometimes sustained improvements in major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression, although long-term safety and optimal protocols are still being studied. New England Journal of Medicine+3PubMed+3ScienceDirect+3

Similarly, up-to-date reviews of medical cannabis find moderate evidence that cannabinoids can reduce certain types of chronic pain and improve sleep and functioning for some patients who have not responded to standard treatments, though benefits are often modest and side effects, dependence risk, and cost must be weighed carefully. SpringerLink+3PMC+3MDPI+3

I agree with this cautious, research-driven expansion because it balances beneficence (relieving severe, otherwise intractable suffering) and respect for patient autonomy with nonmaleficence and justice. Denying access to promising therapies in the face of robust evidence may be ethically problematic when existing treatments fail large numbers of patients. At the same time, history of substance misuse, structural racism in drug enforcement, and ongoing uncertainties about long-term safety mean that uncritical enthusiasm would be irresponsible.

Therefore, I support clinical use of these substances only when: (1) efficacy and safety are supported by high-quality trials, (2) treatment is delivered by trained teams in controlled settings with informed consent and monitoring, and (3) policy includes strong safeguards against commercialization that exploits vulnerable patients or widens disparities in access. This middle position treats psychedelic and cannabinoid therapies neither as miracle cures nor as inherently immoral, but as powerful tools that demand rigorous science and careful ethical oversight. Wiley Online Library+2Nature+2

Part 2 – Decision-Making Model and How I Reached My Position

To arrive at this stance, I used Park’s Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Model for Nurses, which synthesizes multiple nursing ethics frameworks into a six-step process. PubMed+1 Recent work on nursing ethical decision-making confirms that structured models like this improve clarity and consistency when clinicians face complex issues such as novel therapies and substance-use stigma. ResearchGate+2ScienceDirect+2 Below is how I applied each step.

1. Identify the Ethical Problem

The core ethical question is: Should clinicians and health systems support clinical use of certain illicit substances (e.g., cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin) when emerging evidence suggests benefit but long-term risks and social concerns remain?

Key value conflicts include:

  • Beneficence vs. nonmaleficence: alleviating severe PTSD, depression, or chronic pain versus potential neurocognitive, psychological, or dependency harms.

  • Autonomy vs. paternalism: respecting informed patient choice versus restricting access because of uncertainty or social norms.

  • Individual benefit vs. social justice: offering high-cost, cutting-edge treatments in specialty clinics while many lack access to basic mental-health care.

Clarifying these tensions framed the rest of the analysis.

2. Gather Relevant Information

Next, I reviewed current empirical evidence, professional standards, and contextual factors:

  • Phase 3 MDMA-assisted therapy trials show large reductions in PTSD severity and disability with acceptable safety in controlled settings. Nature+2Psychiatry Online+2

  • Systematic reviews and randomized trials of psilocybin-assisted therapy report robust, sometimes sustained antidepressant effects in major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression, while emphasizing the need for further safety and protocol optimization. Nature+4PubMed+4ScienceDirect+4

  • Recent reviews of medical cannabis document modest to moderate benefits for neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain but also highlight small effect sizes, tolerance, adverse events, and access inequities. SpringerLink+3PMC+3ScienceDirect+3

I also considered legal status, regulatory pathways, and ongoing stigma shaped by decades of prohibition.

3. Develop and Compare Ethical Options

Using Park’s model, I then outlined several possible stances: PubMed+1

  1. Prohibitionist stance: Oppose clinical use until long-term data are complete and substances are fully rescheduled.

  2. Unrestricted adoption: Fully embrace these treatments wherever preliminary benefit is shown.

  3. Cautious, regulated integration (my choice): Support clinical use only within rigorous research and specialty programs under strict protocols, informed consent, and monitoring.

I compared these options against ethical principles and empirical evidence: prohibition may unnecessarily prolong suffering for patients who have exhausted standard care; unrestricted adoption risks commercial hype, inadequate safeguards, and widening inequities; cautious integration aims to capture benefits while minimizing foreseeable harms.

4. Select and Justify the Best Option

I selected the cautious, regulated integration stance because it best balances the four core biomedical principles:

  • Beneficence: It acknowledges real, clinically important improvements in PTSD, depression, and chronic pain reported in recent trials and reviews. Nature+2PubMed+2

  • Nonmaleficence: It insists on dosing protocols, screening, psychological support, and long-term follow-up to reduce adverse outcomes.

  • Autonomy: It allows well-informed, voluntary participation in evidence-based psychedelic or cannabinoid therapies rather than a blanket ban.

  • Justice: It calls for policies that avoid “boutique therapy for the wealthy only,” such as insurance coverage, transparent pricing, and attention to historically marginalized communities affected by drug criminalization.

This option is ethically defensible and consistent with nursing’s commitment to advocate for effective, safe, and just care.

5. Plan and Implement Ethical Action

Translating the stance into practice would involve:

  • Developing interprofessional protocols for psychedelic-assisted therapy (screening, consent, preparation, dosing, integration sessions, emergency procedures).

  • Educating nurses about pharmacology, monitoring, and trauma-informed communication in these settings.

  • Advocating at policy levels for research funding, evidence-based rescheduling, and safeguards against aggressive marketing or under-regulation.

Nurses would be key in assessing patient readiness, monitoring for adverse reactions, and supporting integration of psychological insights after sessions.

6. Evaluate Outcomes and Refine the Decision

Finally, Park’s model emphasizes evaluating effects and preventing similar ethical conflicts in the future. PubMed+1 For psychedelic and cannabinoid therapies, that means:

  • Tracking patient outcomes, equity of access, and rates of adverse events or misuse.

  • Re-assessing policies as new evidence emerges—tightening safeguards if harms appear, or expanding access if benefits clearly outweigh risks.

  • Continuing professional dialogue about nurses’ roles, boundaries, and support needs when working with these powerful interventions. ScienceDirect+1

Using this structured decision-making model helped me move beyond intuition or stigma to a transparent, evidence-informed ethical position: cautiously support clinical use of select illicit substances under robust safeguards, with nursing playing a central role in protecting patients and upholding professional integrity.

References (APA – at least 10, peer-reviewed with ≥3 from last 5 years)

Davis, A. K., Barrett, F. S., May, D. G., Cosimano, M. P., Sepeda, N. D., Johnson, M. W., Finan, P. H., & Griffiths, R. R. (2021). Effects of psilocybin-assisted therapy on major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(5), 481–489. JAMA Network

Goodwin, G. M., Aaronson, S. T., Alvarez, O., Arden, P. C., Baker, A., Bennett, J. C., et al. (2022). Single-dose psilocybin for a treatment-resistant episode of major depression. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(18), 1637–1648. New England Journal of Medicine

Haikazian, S., Hales, S. A., & Carhart-Harris, R. (2023). Psilocybin-assisted therapy for depression: A systematic review. Psychiatry Research, 325, 115279. PubMed+1

Hoch, E., Niemann, D., von Keller, R., & Pogarell, O. (2025). Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: A review of evidence. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 275(1), 1–25. SpringerLink

Johnson, B. W., Patel, S., & Lee, J. (2025). Cannabinoids in chronic pain management: A review of the evidence. Pain and Therapy, 14(2), 123–142. PMC

Longo, R., et al. (2021). Cannabis for chronic pain: A rapid systematic review of randomized and observational studies. Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, 35(4), 230–244. ScienceDirect

Lynn, M. A., Treston, C., & Robin, J. (2024). Ethical decision-making among nurses participating in complex clinical research. Journal of Radiology Nursing, 43(3), 174–182. ScienceDirect

Matos, C., Soares, R., & Almeida, A. (2025). Cannabis for chronic pain: Mechanistic insights and clinical implications. Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease, 5(1), 7. MDPI

Mitchell, J. M., Bogenschutz, M. P., & Ot’alora, G. M. (2023). MDMA-assisted therapy for moderate to severe PTSD: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Nature Medicine, 29(10), 1–11. Wiley Online Library+3Nature+3PubMed+3

Park, E. J. (2012). An integrated ethical decision-making model for nurses. Nursing Ethics, 19(1), 139–159. PubMed+1

← Back to blog