Skip to content
Psychedelic Retreats Australia

Safety, Screening & Contraindications: What Good Retreats Do

By Adam Hackney
Draft — pending editorial review. This guide is a working draft; facts marked TODO-ADAM in the source still need verification before this is considered final.

This guide is informational, not medical advice. It describes patterns we’ve observed among the more thoroughly-documented operators in this directory — it isn’t a personal risk assessment, which only a qualified health professional can give you.

Commonly cited contraindications

Across the operators whose screening materials we’ve reviewed for this directory, certain conditions and circumstances come up repeatedly as reasons for exclusion or requiring specific medical sign-off: a history of psychosis or certain psychotic-spectrum diagnoses, active suicidal ideation, certain dissociative or personality disorders, recent psychiatric hospitalisation, pregnancy, and interactions with specific medication classes (SSRIs and MAOIs are commonly flagged for ayahuasca specifically, given known interaction risks).

This is a description of what we’ve seen operators publish, not an exhaustive or personally-applicable medical list — again, this is not medical advice, and contraindications vary by substance, by individual health history, and by current medication.

What a genuine screening process looks like

The strongest example we found during research for this directory is worth describing concretely: a Peru-based ayahuasca centre whose safety materials describe a screening process developed with a harm-reduction organisation, reviewed by an off-site doctor and psychologist, with the centre stating that roughly 70% of applicants are ultimately accepted — implying real, non-trivial screening rather than a pro forma step. Compare that to an operator that only says “we screen participants” with no further detail; the difference in what’s actually verifiable is significant, which is exactly what our vetting checklist tries to surface.

What a genuine emergency protocol looks like

Similarly, the strongest emergency-protocol disclosure we found specifies concrete elements: an onsite nurse or medical professional, specific emergency equipment (an AED was specifically mentioned by one operator), a named contracted clinic or hospital, and a stated evacuation time and method. Weaker disclosure just asserts “trained staff on hand” without any of these specifics — a meaningfully weaker claim even though it sounds reassuring.

Independent verification matters

Operator-published safety information is self-reported by definition — which is exactly why our vetting checklist labels items “stated” rather than “verified,” and why we recommend checking independent reviews (not just testimonials curated on the operator’s own site) as a separate signal. See our 12-question vetting guide for the fuller list of questions worth asking directly.

Mental health support

If anything in this guide, or in your own circumstances, raises concerns about your mental health, Lifeline (13 11 14) is available 24/7, and in an emergency call 000. This guide, and this site generally, is not a substitute for professional mental health support.

If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available right now: Lifeline 13 11 14, 24/7. In an emergency, call 000.

Frequently asked questions

Is this a substitute for medical advice?

No. This guide is general information based on what we've observed reputable operators publish. It is not a substitute for advice from a qualified health professional about your specific circumstances.

Why do contraindication lists vary between operators?

Partly genuine differences in medical judgment and risk tolerance, and partly differences in how thoroughly an operator has documented its practices publicly. A vague or absent list is itself informative — it's one of the six items on our vetting checklist for that reason.