Professional boundaries and recording consent

The manuals converge on the idea that recording is not routine, it is a controlled part of the therapeutic and research setting. Across the extracts, recordings are tied to explicit participant consent, with repeated emphasis on transparency about what is recorded, how it is used, and how it is stored. Several sources also link recording to confidentiality protections, secure handling, and limits on access or dissemination. They also agree that secondary uses of recordings, such as training, supervision, or research analysis, require separate or additional permission in many cases. The manuals consistently treat participant refusal as something that does not remove access to care or study participation. In that sense, recording is framed as part of the protocol and scientific framework, not as an automatic feature of treatment. The main differences are in how specific the recording arrangements are and how far participant control is described. Some manuals specify audio only for preparation or integration sessions, others describe both audio and video recording of dosing and therapy sessions, and one notes ad hoc review for safety and adherence. A few extracts add extra details, such as participant rights to stop recording or request erasure, facial obscuring for training, or marking recordings only by participant number, while others focus more generally on consent, confidentiality, and secure storage.