Assessing Canadian Policy Readiness for Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy in Cancer Care
Christopher P. Albertyn, Ron Shore, Linda E. Carlson, Erika Dyck, David Clements
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) August 17, 2026 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21983117 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Policy analysis Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Psychedelic-assisted therapy |
| Key points | Argues that no single organization, profession, or jurisdiction currently holds clear responsibility for coordinating psilocybin-assisted therapy policy in Canada, and that fragmented governance across federal and provincial bodies creates uncertainty around training, reimbursement, service delivery, accountability, and equity, posing a potential implementation barrier as evidence and demand evolve. |
Abstract
As interest in psychedelic-assisted therapy grows, an important policy question remains largely unaddressed: who is responsible for ensuring safe, equitable, and accountable implementation within cancer care systems? This poster explores the emerging governance landscape for psychedelic-assisted therapy in Canada. Abstract
Background: Psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) is emerging as a promising intervention for existential distress, demoralization, depression, and anxiety among people living with cancer. Despite growing clinical evidence and expanding legal access pathways in Canada, implementation discussions remain focused on efficacy, safety, and regulation, while comparatively little attention has been paid to system-level policy readiness.
Objective: This work explores the Canadian policy landscape surrounding PAT in cancer care and examines whether existing governance structures are positioned to support equitable, safe, and evidence-informed implementation if clinical evidence continues to mature. Approach: Conducted within the Canadian Network for Psychedelic-Assisted Cancer Therapy (CAN-PACT), this project combines targeted review of federal and provincial policy instruments, regulatory frameworks, publicly available professional guidance, and stakeholder engagement activities involving health system decision-makers, regulators, clinicians, and patient partners. Key
Findings: The analysis suggests that no single organization, profession, or jurisdiction currently holds clear responsibility for coordinating PAT policy in Canada. Governance responsibilities are distributed across federal regulators, provincial health systems, professional colleges, cancer agencies, and clinical organizations, creating a fragmented environment with substantial uncertainty around training standards, reimbursement, service delivery models, accountability, and equity considerations. While federal access mechanisms exist through clinical trials, the Special Access Program, and other pathways, integration within cancer systems remains largely absent.
Implications: Policy fragmentation may become a significant implementation barrier as evidence and demand continue to evolve. Opportunities exist to strengthen policy readiness through coordinated stakeholder engagement, development of implementation guidance, clarification of roles and responsibilities, proactive equity planning, and knowledge mobilization activities that connect emerging evidence with health system decision-makers.
Conclusion: The central challenge facing PAT implementation in Canada may no longer be whether access pathways exist, but whether health systems are prepared to govern, integrate, and scale these therapies responsibly. Understanding policy readiness is therefore an essential complement to ongoing clinical research. Funding statement: This work was conducted through the Canadian Network for Psychedelic-Assisted Cancer Therapy (CAN-PACT), funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and Brain Canada..