Some argue AI therapy can break down mental health stigma — others warn it could make it worse

Salon - Mar 30th, 2025

The use of AI chatbots in therapy is growing as they offer a more accessible and affordable alternative to traditional therapy. Viki, a 30-year-old out of work, chose an AI chatbot to help process her feelings after struggling with human therapists. Companies like Wysa are advancing in the field, with the FDA granting special designation to expedite their approval as a medical device for treating depression and anxiety. These chatbots are designed to mimic human empathy and offer a stigma-free way to seek help, but experts remain cautious about their limitations and potential risks.

The rise of AI therapy presents a significant shift in mental health care, promising wider access but also raising ethical concerns. Critics worry about the loss of human connection, the potential for increased isolation, and the absence of safeguards present in human therapy. Incidents like a tragic case involving a teenager underscore the need for regulation and responsibility. While AI chatbots offer a novel way to supplement traditional therapy, they cannot fully replace the nuanced understanding and intervention provided by human therapists. As the technology advances, balancing innovation with humanity remains crucial.

Mental Health Technology Fda Ethics Ai Chatbots Therapy Wysa Depression Anxiety Viki

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the potential benefits and challenges of using AI chatbots in mental health therapy. It presents a balanced view by including expert opinions and highlighting both the opportunities and risks associated with this technology. However, the article would benefit from more detailed citations and empirical evidence to substantiate its claims. The topic is timely and of significant public interest, addressing issues that are likely to remain relevant in the future. While the article is generally clear and engaging, some technical terms could be better explained to enhance readability. Overall, it effectively raises important questions about the future of mental health care and the role of AI, though it could further strengthen its impact by providing more robust evidence.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims about the use of AI chatbots in mental health support. It accurately describes the emergence of AI chatbots as therapeutic tools, mentioning specific examples like Wysa, which received a special designation from the FDA. However, the story lacks detailed citations or references to studies that verify the effectiveness of AI therapy in reducing stigma or its long-term impact on mental health symptoms. The claim about the 14-year-old boy's suicide after interacting with a chatbot is serious and requires thorough verification, as it is critical to understanding the potential risks of AI chatbots in mental health care.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting both the potential benefits and drawbacks of using AI chatbots for mental health support. It includes perspectives from experts like David Luxton and Şerife Tekin, who express caution about the technology's limitations and risks. The story also highlights the potential for AI to reduce mental health stigma, offering a comprehensive overview of the topic. However, it could benefit from including more diverse perspectives, such as those from patients who have had positive experiences with AI therapy.

Clarity

The language and structure of the article are clear and easy to follow. It logically presents the potential benefits and risks of AI chatbots in mental health care, making it accessible to a general audience. The tone is neutral, and the information is presented in a way that facilitates understanding. However, some complex topics, like the ethical implications of AI therapy, could be explained in more detail to enhance comprehension.

Source quality

The article references credible sources such as clinical psychologists and ethicists, which adds to its reliability. However, it lacks direct citations to studies or official reports that could substantiate the claims made about AI chatbots' effectiveness and safety. The reliance on interviews with experts provides valuable insights but does not fully compensate for the absence of more robust, empirical evidence.

Transparency

The article provides some context for its claims, such as the FDA's involvement with Wysa and the ethical concerns raised by experts. However, it lacks transparency in terms of the methodology used to gather information and does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The article would benefit from clearer explanations of how the information was sourced and any factors that might affect its impartiality.