Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

Are contemporary mindfulness-based interventions unethical?

William Van Gordon, Edo Shonin and Mark D Griffiths
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (643): 94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X683677
William Van Gordon
Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, Nottinghamshire.
Roles: Principal Investigator
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edo Shonin
Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, Nottinghamshire.
Roles: Research Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark D Griffiths
Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, Nottinghamshire.
Roles: Professor of Behavioural Addiction
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Mindfulness involves regulating ruminative thought processes by focusing awareness on the present moment.1 The technique derives from Buddhist practice and has received substantial interest and uptake among the scientific and medical community, as well as the public more generally. Based on emerging empirical evidence, the UK’s Mental Health Foundation recently called for mindfulness to be made more readily available on the NHS.2

Although there is considerable interest in mindfulness, the rapidity at which it has been extracted from its traditional Buddhist setting has given rise to what has been termed the ‘mindfulness backlash’.3 This has emerged from a wider movement that views many mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) as highly superficial representations of traditional Buddhist mindfulness teachings, and asserts that MBIs are teaching ‘McMindfulness’.2,3 Included within the criticisms levied at MBIs are claims that patients are being treated unethically due to being provided with misleading information regarding the possible religious intentions of certain MBIs.2,3

Within healthcare settings, MBIs are generally delivered in a secular format, with limited use of Buddhist terminology. Consequently it might appear as though potential issues regarding religiosity have been circumvented, and there are no grounds for claiming ethical impropriety. However, a closer inspection of the rhetoric employed in the promotional literature of certain MBIs, and also by some of the founders and leading-advocates of these interventions, suggests otherwise. A notable example are the assertions made by Kabat-Zinn, founder of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and the University of Massachusetts Medical School Centre for Mindfulness (CFM). On the one hand, Kabat-Zinn asserts that MBSR is neither spiritual in nature nor is it about Buddhism per se.4 However, Kabat-Zinn also asserts that MBSR is about ‘... the movement of the Dharma into the mainstream of society’.4 ‘Dharma’ is a Buddhist word meaning the ‘Buddhist teachings’.

Similar claims have recently been made by Santorelli (executive director of CFM) who attempted to explicitly associate MBSR with Buddhism by asserting that: ‘MBSR is simply a contemporary expression of a twenty-six hundred year old meditation tradition …’ 5 Likewise, such rhetoric also appears to be present in some of the MBI promotional literature in which a qualified teacher is deemed by the CFM to be ‘... a committed student of the dharma, as it is expressed both within the Buddhist meditation traditions and in more mainstream and universal contexts exemplified by MBSR ’. 6

There are two principal reasons why such widely-propagated assertions give rise to serious ethical implications. The first is that it is questionable whether contemporary MBIs actually embody and teach mindfulness in a manner bearing resemblance to the traditional Buddhist meaning of this term.1–3 It is misleading to claim that MBIs teach the Dharma if this is not the case. The second reason relates to the fact that, within healthcare settings, most participants of MBIs think that they are receiving a non-religious and non-spiritual intervention designed to enhance their levels of psychosomatic wellbeing.1 Therefore, it is misleading and ethically inappropriate to assert that an MBI is non-spiritual and not Buddhist-related if, consistent with the assertions of some leading MBI proponents, an underlying intention is to use MBIs as vehicles for introducing individuals to the Buddhist teachings.

According to Purser, contemporary mindfulness providers are ‘engaging in self-censorship’ and ‘camouflage’ when they say that their treatments have nothing to do with Buddhism.3 Given that there are both historic (Malnak versus Yogil, 1979) and recent (Sedlock versus Baird et al, 2013) lawsuits relating to wilful or inadvertent exposure of ‘unsuspecting’ individuals to religiously and/or spiritually-orientated techniques (that is, Transcendental Meditation and yoga), it appears that healthcare providers choosing to offer MBIs are taking on a significant legal and commercial risk.

Moving forward, we recommend that individuals involved in developing, administering, and/or advocating MBIs decide whether their primary intention is to provide either: an intervention for transmitting Buddhism to clinical and non-clinical populations; or an attention-based behavioural intervention based upon mindfulness but fundamentally different from the Buddhist interpretation of this term. If the intention is to realise the first scenario, then it should be made abundantly clear to patients that a primary purpose of the intervention they are about to receive is to learn about Buddhism (with mindfulness taught in the traditional Buddhist way). However, if the intention is to realise the second scenario and provide a non-religious behavioural intervention, claims that MBIs embody and teach the Dharma should be abandoned.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Shonin E,
    2. Van Gordon W,
    3. Griffiths MD
    (2013) Mindfulness-based interventions: towards mindful clinical integration. Front Psychol 4:194.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Van Gordon W,
    2. Griffiths MD
    (2015) For the mindful teaching of mindfulness. The Psychologist, https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/july-2015/mindful-teaching-mindfulness (accessed 14 Dec 2015).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Purser RE
    (2014) Clearing the muddled path of traditional and contemporary mindfulness: a response to Monteiro, Musten, and Compson. Mindfulness 6(1):23–45.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Shonin E
    (2015) The Psychologist, ‘This is not McMindfulness by any stretch of the imagination.’ https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/not-mcmindfulness-any-stretch-imagination (accessed 11 Jan 2016).
  5. 5.↵
    1. McCown D,
    2. Reibel D,
    3. Micozzi M
    1. Santorelli S
    (2015) in Resources for Teaching Mindfulness: A Cross-cultural and International Handbook, Remembrance: dialogue and inquiry in the MBSR classroom, eds McCown D, Reibel D, Micozzi M (Springer, New York).
  6. 6.↵
    1. University of Massachusetts
    Medical School Center for Mindfulness. Training teachers to deliver mindfulness-based stress reduction: principles and standards, http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/Training/Principles--Standards/ (accessed 14 Dec 2015).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (643)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 643
February 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Are contemporary mindfulness-based interventions unethical?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Are contemporary mindfulness-based interventions unethical?
William Van Gordon, Edo Shonin, Mark D Griffiths
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (643): 94. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X683677

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Are contemporary mindfulness-based interventions unethical?
William Van Gordon, Edo Shonin, Mark D Griffiths
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (643): 94. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X683677
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • The chronotherapy of hypertension: or the benefit of taking blood pressure tablets at bedtime
  • Every home should have one: the critical role of the research librarian
  • Fakery and science
Show more Out of Hours

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242