Criterion 9: Rules, obligations, rights

Criterion 8 described the program's goals. Criterion 9 describes its rules, the client's obligations, and the client's rights, the reciprocal framework of conduct that holds the work. Where Criterion 6 produced the signed rights agreement as a legal instrument, this criterion is the orientation act of explaining the living framework so the client understands the container they are entering: what is required of them, what is forbidden and why, and what they are owed in return. The rights are cross-referenced to Criterion 6 rather than re-taught, and the safety-critical rules are connected to the hazards of Criteria 1 and 2 rather than listed as etiquette.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this module, the trainee will be able to:

• Distinguish rules, obligations, and rights, and explain how the three together form a reciprocal compact between client and program.
• Present program rules in a way that conveys their protective purpose, so a client understands the reason behind each rule rather than only the prohibition.
• Identify which rules are safety-critical, connecting the no-undisclosed-substances rule to the serotonin syndrome and cardiac hazards of Criteria 1 and 2.
• Articulate client obligations as shared responsibility that positions the client as a collaborator in their own care.
• Explain the client's rights as the reciprocal half of the compact, and locate their formal, signed basis in Criterion 6.
• Describe why clear boundaries are especially load-bearing in altered-state work, drawing on the vulnerability and power-asymmetry the medicated state creates.
• Distinguish a rule whose violation warrants discharge from one that warrants a conversation, and communicate consequences fairly in advance.
• Confirm understanding rather than assuming it, and document that the framework was explained and understood.

Key Terms

Rule. A program requirement or prohibition governing conduct, logistics, or safety, for example remaining in the session space, adhering to dietary guidelines, or disclosing all substances. Rules define the structure of the container.

Obligation. A responsibility the client takes on as a participant, for example attending preparation and integration sessions, communicating openly about risks, and following safety instructions during the session. Obligations express the client's active part in the work.

Right. A protection the client retains throughout the process, for example confidentiality, informed consent, withdrawal, and respectful treatment. Rights are the reciprocal half of the compact and are formally secured in the signed agreements of Criterion 6.

Reciprocal compact. The mutual structure in which the client accepts rules and obligations and the program guarantees rights, so that responsibility and protection run in both directions rather than only from program to client.

The container. The bounded, protected space, physical, temporal, relational, and normative, within which the work is held. Rules and boundaries are what allow the container to hold deep vulnerability safely.

Safety-critical rule. A rule whose violation creates a direct risk of serious physical harm, as distinct from a rule that protects order or trust. The requirement to disclose all substances and medications is safety-critical because of the hazards taught in Criteria 1 and 2.

Power asymmetry. The imbalance of power between a facilitator and a client that is heightened in psychedelic work, because the medicated client is suggestible and vulnerable. This asymmetry is the reason boundaries and rights carry special ethical weight (Anderson, Danforth, & Grob, 2020).

Discharge criteria. The specified conduct whose violation may result in a client being removed from the program, communicated in advance so that any consequence is fair and predictable rather than arbitrary.

Protective framing. The practice of explaining a rule in terms of what it protects rather than only what it prohibits, so a client understands and accepts the rule as a safeguard.

Core Teaching

The reciprocal compact

Criterion 8 gives the client the program's vision. Criterion 9 gives them its structure, which has three parts best understood together rather than as separate lists. Rules define what conduct the container requires and forbids. Obligations define what the client actively takes on. Rights define what the client is guaranteed in return. Together, the three form a reciprocal compact: the client accepts rules and obligations, and the program guarantees rights, so that responsibility and protection run in both directions. Presenting them as a compact rather than as a one-sided set of demands changes how a client receives them. A person who hears only what is required of them experiences orientation as a list of constraints. A person who hears that their acceptance of the rules is matched by the program's guarantee of their rights understands that they are entering a fair structure, and that fairness itself is part of what makes a container feel safe enough to be vulnerable in.

This is where the distinction from Criterion 6 matters. Criterion 6 produced the signed rights agreement, a legal instrument that binds the program and empowers the client. Criterion 9 is the orientation act of explaining the whole framework, rules, and obligations as well as rights, so the client understands the living compact they are joining. The rights themselves are not re-taught here as legal instruments; they are named as the reciprocal half of the compact, and their formal, signed basis is Criterion 6. What Criterion 9 adds is the other two-thirds, the rules and obligations that Criterion 6 did not cover, and the pedagogy of communicating the whole structure so a client accepts it rather than merely signs it.

Why boundaries carry more weight in altered-state work

Rules and boundaries matter in any care setting. They matter more here, and the reason is specific rather than atmospheric. A person under a psychedelic is highly suggestible and often loses the ordinary guardedness that protects them in daily life, which produces a heightened power asymmetry between the medicated client and the facilitator who is not medicated. The field's own safety-and-ethics commentary identifies this asymmetry and the vulnerability it creates as a central concern, precisely because the altered state opens a person to influence and to harm in ways ordinary interaction does not (Anderson, Danforth, & Grob, 2020). Clear rules and boundaries are the structural response to that asymmetry. They constrain the facilitator as much as the client, and they give the vulnerable person a known, predictable framework that does not depend on the goodwill of whoever is in the room. A container without clear boundaries asks a person to be vulnerable on trust alone; a container with them asks the person to be vulnerable inside a structure, which is a fundamentally safer request.

Rules, and the discipline of protective framing

Program rules span three rough domains. There are safety rules: disclosing all substances and medications, following safety instructions, remaining in the session space during an altered state. There are logistical rules: punctuality, dietary guidelines, attendance. And there are relational rules, respecting the confidentiality of others, refraining from conduct that disrupts or endangers the group. The content of these rules is less pedagogically interesting than how they are presented, because the same rule can be received as a restriction or as a safeguard depending on how it is framed.

The discipline worth teaching is protective framing: explaining a rule in terms of what it protects rather than only what it forbids. A dietary guideline presented as a prohibition invites resistance; the same guideline presented as a measure that protects the client's physical safety, with the reason stated, invites cooperation. A rule against leaving the session space presented as a restriction feels controlling; presented as a protection against the real dangers of wandering unsupervised in an altered state, it feels like care. Protective framing works because it treats the client as someone capable of understanding and consenting to the logic of their own safety, rather than as someone to be managed. It also happens to be more honest, because the rules genuinely do exist to protect, and stating the reason makes the rule truthful rather than arbitrary. A facilitator who cannot state what a rule protects should ask whether the rule is doing any work at all.

The safety-critical rule that is not etiquette

One rule deserves separate treatment because it is routinely mislabeled as conduct when it is, in fact, medical safety. The requirement that a client disclose all substances and medications and use nothing undisclosed around the work functions as the frontline defense against the two lethal hazards of the field, well beyond any matter of decorum or ceremonial purity. A client taking an undisclosed serotonergic medication who is dosed with an MAO-inhibiting brew such as ayahuasca is exposed to serotonin syndrome, and a client on an undisclosed QT-prolonging drug near ibogaine is exposed to a potentially fatal arrhythmia. Both are taught in depth in Criteria 1 and 2. When this rule is presented at orientation, it should be presented with the weight of its actual stakes, not folded into a list of house norms. The client should understand that full disclosure is not the program being controlling; it is the single most important thing they can do to keep themselves alive, because the danger is real and the facilitator cannot protect against a substance they do not know about. This is a place where protective framing and the safety spine meet: the rule is a safeguard, and naming what it safeguards against, honestly and specifically, is what makes a client take it seriously.

Obligations as shared responsibility

Obligations are the client's active contributions to the work, and how they are framed determines whether a client experiences themselves as a collaborator or a subject. Common obligations, such as attending preparation and integration sessions, participating respectfully in a group, following safety instructions during the session, and communicating openly about risks and difficulties, are reasonable on their face. What matters is the framing. Presented as demands, they position the client as a passive recipient who must comply. Presented as a shared responsibility, they position the client as an active partner whose participation is part of what makes the work succeed. The second framing is both more accurate and more effective, because this work genuinely depends on the client's engagement in a way that a purely medical procedure does not. The integration obligation is the clearest example: as Criterion 1 established, much of the durable benefit is consolidated in the weeks after the session, so a client who treats integration as optional has done more than break a rule; they have opted out of a large part of where the work happens. Framing that obligation as a shared responsibility communicates why it matters, rather than simply requiring it.

Rights as the reciprocal half

The client's rights complete the compact and are named here as the program's side of the reciprocal structure: in exchange for the client accepting rules and obligations, the program guarantees protections that do not depend on anyone's goodwill in the moment. The core rights, including confidentiality, informed consent, the right to withdraw or pause at any time, respectful and non-discriminatory treatment, and the right to ask questions about the program and the medicine, were established and secured as signed instruments in Criterion 6, and their full treatment lives there. Criterion 9 situates them in the compact, so the client hears their rights and obligations in the same breath and understands the structure as fair. Reinforcing the rights at orientation also serves a specific protective function against the power asymmetry discussed above: a client who has been clearly told, out loud and in advance, that they may withdraw at any time and that they will be treated with respect holds a known protection they can invoke, which is exactly what the vulnerability of the medicated state makes necessary. The right to withdraw carries particular weight because, in this work, it includes the right to stop or pause a process that has become intolerable. A client who knows that right is real is safer than one who does not.

Consequences, discharge, and fairness

A framework of rules implies consequences for violating them, and fairness requires that those consequences be known in advance rather than improvised. Not every rule violation is equal. Some conduct, disclosed later or minor, warrants a conversation and a recalibration. Other conduct, endangering oneself or others, or serious boundary violation, warrants discharge from the program. The distinction should be made clear at orientation, along with what the serious consequences are, so that if a boundary ever has to be enforced, it is something the client agreed to in advance rather than a punishment sprung on them. This is the same principle established for the behavioral compact in Criterion 7: a consequence enforced from a framework the person accepted beforehand is experienced as fair, while the same consequence imposed without warning is experienced as arbitrary. Communicating discharge criteria in advance protects both parties, the client from unfair surprise and the program from the difficult position of enforcing an expectation it never stated.

Confirming understanding, not assuming it

The final discipline of this criterion is verification. A framework the client did not actually understand is not a framework; it is a formality. The rules, obligations, and rights should be written into the orientation materials and given to the client to keep, and the facilitator should check for genuine understanding rather than assuming it from a nod. Inviting questions, asking the client to reflect back the safety-critical points in their own words, and confirming that the client understands both what is required and what they are owed, all convert a recitation into a shared agreement. That the framework was explained and understood should be documented, connecting to the intake record of Criterion 5. The purpose throughout is a container that is both strong and fair: strong because its boundaries are clear and safety-critical rules are taken seriously, and fair because the client accepted those boundaries knowingly and holds guaranteed rights in return. This criterion pairs with Criterion 10, which completes the orientation by describing how the program operates day to day.

Clinical and Decision Tools

Tool 1. The reciprocal compact at a glance

Present all three parts together so the client hears requirement and protection in the same breath. This is the structure that makes the container feel fair.

Tool 2. Rules by domain, with protective framing

For each rule, state what it protects, not only what it forbids. The shaded row is safety-critical and carries the weight of the safety spine (Criteria 1 and 2).

Tool 3. Consequence and discharge guide

Communicate in advance which violations warrant a conversation and which warrant discharge, so any consequence is fair and predictable. Shaded rows are typical discharge-level conduct.

Tool 4. Orientation delivery checklist (rules, obligations, rights)

Confirm each element is delivered and understood. Shaded items are the ones whose omission most endangers the client or the fairness of the compact.

Worked Example: Delivering Rules, Obligations, and Rights

The following models an orientation delivery that presents the compact as reciprocal, frames rules protectively, gives the safety-critical rule its due weight, and confirms understanding. Details are fictional; the program is a group psilocybin retreat with clinical screening.

Opening the compact: “I am going to walk you through three things: the rules we ask you to follow, what we are asking you to take on, and what you are guaranteed in return. I want you to hear all three together, because this is a two-way agreement, not a list of demands.”

The safety-critical rule, given its weight: “The most important rule is this: we need to know every substance and medication you take, and you must not use anything we do not know about around this work. This is not about control. Certain combinations with these medicines can be genuinely dangerous, even fatal. I cannot keep you safe from something I do not know about. This one matters more than any other.” Cross-references the screening of Criteria 1 and 2.

A rule with protective framing: “We ask you to stay in the session space. That is not to confine you. In a deeply altered state, wandering off on your own is genuinely unsafe, and staying here is how we keep you protected while you are vulnerable.”

Obligations as shared responsibility: “We are asking you to attend the integration sessions, and I want to tell you why rather than just require it. A lot of the real change happens in the weeks afterward, when you work through what came up. Your engagement there is part of what makes this succeed. You are a partner in this, not a passenger.”

Rights as the reciprocal half: “In return, here is what you are guaranteed. Your confidentiality is protected. You can ask any question. And you can stop or step out at any time, including during the session, for any reason. That right is real, and you never have to earn it or justify it. These are written in the agreement you signed, and I am saying them out loud so you know they are yours.”

Consequences, stated fairly in advance: “Most issues we handle with a conversation. Two things would end your participation: endangering yourself or someone else, and a serious violation of another person. I am telling you now so nothing is a surprise later.”

Confirming understanding: “Can you tell me back, in your own words, the one rule that matters most for your safety? … That is exactly right. What questions do you have about any of this?” Documented that the framework was explained and understood (see C5).

Case Vignettes

Work each vignette by identifying the framework problem, the principle at stake, and the correct handling. Fillable response sheets are in the companion worksheet PDF.

Vignette A

At orientation, a facilitator lists the program rules quickly as a set of prohibitions, do not do this, do not do that, without explaining the reason behind any of them. A client later confides they found the rules controlling and considered leaving.

Guided questions: What discipline was missing from this delivery? How would protective framing have changed the client's experience of the same rules? What does a facilitator who cannot state what a rule protects need to reconsider?

Vignette B

A facilitator presents the no-undisclosed-substances rule in the same offhand tone as the punctuality rule, as one item in a list of house norms. A client, not grasping its importance, does not mention an antidepressant they take occasionally.

Guided questions: What did the flat framing cost here, and which hazards from Criteria 1 and 2 are now in play? Why is this rule categorically different from the punctuality rule? How should it have been presented so the client understood the stakes?

Vignette C

A program describes the client's obligations, attendance, participation, and following instructions entirely as requirements the client must meet to remain enrolled. Several clients treat integration as an optional extra and skip it.

Guided questions: How did the demand framing contribute to clients opting out of integration? Drawing on Criterion 1, what have those clients actually opted out of? How would framing obligations as shared responsibility change engagement?

Vignette D

Midway through a retreat, a facilitator has to remove a participant for conduct that endangered another person. The participant is shocked and angry, saying no one ever told them that could get them removed. Reviewing the orientation, the facilitator realizes discharge criteria were never communicated.

Guided questions: What made this enforcement feel arbitrary to the participant, and was the anger justified in part? Which principle from Criterion 7 applies? How should discharge-level conduct and its consequences have been handled at orientation?

Vignette E

A facilitator delivers a thorough overview of rules and obligations but never mentions the client's rights, assuming the signed agreement from intake covers them. A client, deep in a difficult session, does not realize they are allowed to ask to pause and instead endures an experience that becomes overwhelming.

Guided questions: What was the cost of treating the signed agreement as a substitute for reinforcing rights out loud? How does the power asymmetry of the altered state bear on this? Why does the right to pause specifically need to be spoken, not just signed?

Role-Play and Practice Scripts

Practice in pairs, then switch. The aim is to deliver rules, obligations, and rights as a reciprocal compact, protectively framed and genuinely understood.

Framing a rule protectively

“Here is a rule, and here is what it is for. We ask you not to leave the session space. That is not to control you. In a deeply altered state, being alone and unsupervised is genuinely unsafe, and this rule is how we protect you while you are open and vulnerable. Every rule we have works like that: it is here to protect something.”

Giving the safety-critical rule its weight

“I need to slow down for this one, because it is the most important thing I will say today. We need to know every medication and substance you take, and you cannot use anything we do not know about around this work. Some combinations can be fatal. I am not able to keep you safe from something you have not told me about. This is not control; it is the single most important way you keep yourself safe.” Practice giving this rule visibly more weight than the logistical ones.

Framing an obligation as shared responsibility

“I am going to ask you to commit to the integration sessions, and I want to explain why rather than just require it. Much of the change from this work happens afterward, in the weeks when you make sense of what came up. Your part in that is not optional to the outcome; it is where a lot of the healing actually happens. You are a partner in this.”

Reinforcing rights out loud

“You signed these rights at intake, and I want to say the most important one out loud so it is real to you. At any point, including in the middle of your session, you can ask to pause or stop, for any reason or no reason. You never have to earn that or explain it. If the experience becomes too much, you can say so, and we will respond. That right is yours the entire time.”

Stating consequences fairly in advance

“Let me be clear and fair about consequences now, so nothing is a surprise. Most things we work through with a conversation. Two things would end your participation here: putting yourself or someone else in danger, and a serious violation of another person. I would rather tell you that plainly now than have it come out of nowhere later.”

Self-Assessment and Reflection

Knowledge check

1. Distinguish rules, obligations, and rights, and explain how they form a reciprocal compact.
2. Explain protective framing and why it changes how a client receives a rule.
3. Identify the safety-critical rule and connect it to the specific hazards of Criteria 1 and 2.
4. Explain why boundaries carry heightened weight in altered-state work, using the power-asymmetry point.
5. Explain how framing obligations as shared responsibility differs from framing them as demands, and why it matters for integration.
6. Explain why the right to pause needs to be spoken aloud at orientation and not merely signed at intake.
7. Explain why discharge criteria must be communicated in advance, drawing on the principle from Criterion 7.

Reflection

1. Review how you present your program's rules. Do you state what each one protects, or only what it forbids? Which rules could you not currently explain the purpose of?
2. Does your orientation give the no-undisclosed-substances rule visibly more weight than logistical rules? If not, how would you change its delivery?
3. When did clear, fair expectations make you feel safe, and when did unclear or unstated rules leave you confused or treated unfairly? What does that tell you about the container you want to build?

Summary

Criterion 9 gives the client the structure of the work: the rules the container requires, the obligations the client takes on, and the rights the client is guaranteed in return. Presenting these as a reciprocal compact, in which the client's acceptance of rules and obligations is matched by the program's guarantee of rights, makes the container feel fair, and fairness is part of what makes a person safe enough to be vulnerable. This criterion is distinct from Criterion 6, which produced the signed rights agreement as a legal instrument; here the rights are named as the reciprocal half of the compact and their formal basis is cross-referenced, while the rules and obligations that Criterion 6 did not cover are the new material. Boundaries carry heightened weight because the medicated state creates a real power asymmetry and vulnerability, and clear rules are the structural protection against it. Rules are best delivered with protective framing, stating what each one protects rather than only what it forbids, and one rule, the requirement to disclose all substances and use nothing undisclosed, is safety-critical rather than etiquette, carrying the weight of the serotonin syndrome and cardiac hazards of Criteria 1 and 2. Obligations framed as shared responsibility position the client as a partner, which matters most for integration, where much of the benefit is consolidated. Consequences and discharge criteria are communicated in advance so any enforcement is fair, and understanding is confirmed rather than assumed and documented. The result is a container that is both strong and fair. This criterion pairs with Criterion 10, which completes orientation with the program's day-to-day operations.

References

Hartogsohn, I. (2016). Set and setting, psychedelics and the placebo response: An extra-pharmacological perspective on psychopharmacology. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 30(12), 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881116677852

Anderson, B. T., Danforth, A. L., & Grob, C. S. (2020). Psychedelic medicine: Safety and ethical concerns. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(10), 829–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30146-2

Lee, A., Rosenbaum, D., & Buchman, D. Z. (2024). Informed consent to psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy: Ethical considerations. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 69(5), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437231225937

Ruffell, S., Netzband, N., Bird, C., Young, A. H., & Juruena, M. F. (2020). The pharmacological interaction of compounds in ayahuasca: A systematic review. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(6), 646–656. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2020-0884

Cherian, K. N., Keynan, J. N., Anker, L., Faerman, A., Brown, R. E., Shamma, A., Keynan, O., Coetzee, J. P., Batail, J.-M., Phillips, A., Bassano, N. J., Sahlem, G. L., Inzunza, J., Millar, T., Dickinson, J., Rolle, C. E., Keller, J., Adamson, M., Kratter, I. H., & Williams, N. R. (2024). Magnesium–ibogaine therapy in veterans with traumatic brain injuries. Nature Medicine, 30(2), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02705-w

Dunkley, E. J. C., Isbister, G. K., Sibbritt, D., Dawson, A. H., & Whyte, I. M. (2003). The Hunter Serotonin Toxicity Criteria: Simple and accurate diagnostic decision rules for serotonin toxicity. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 96(9), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcg109

Jacobs, E. (2023). Transformative experience and informed consent to psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1108333. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1108333

Ly, C., Greb, A. C., Cameron, L. P., Wong, J. M., Barragan, E. V., Wilson, P. C., Burbach, K. F., Soltanzadeh Zarandi, S., Sood, A., Paddy, M. R., Duim, W. C., Dennis, M. Y., McAllister, A. K., Ori-McKenney, K. M., Gray, J. A., & Olson, D. E. (2018). Psychedelics promote structural and functional neural plasticity. Cell Reports, 23(11), 3170–3182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.022

Shao, L.-X., Liao, C., Gregg, I., Davoudian, P. A., Savalia, N. K., Delagarza, K., & Kwan, A. C. (2021). Psilocybin induces rapid and persistent growth of dendritic spines in frontal cortex in vivo. Neuron, 109(16), 2535–2544.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.008