Who Should Provide "Psychological Counseling"?... Debate Over Expanding Roles of Mental Health Professionals

Social Workers, Nurses, and Occupational Therapists to Be Allowed in National Programs
Clinical Psychologists Raise Concerns over Expertise Citing Differences in Education and Training

As the government and local authorities move to allow not only clinical psychologists but also social workers, nurses, and occupational therapists specializing in mental health to participate in publicly administered psychological counseling programs, the debate over the national qualification for "psychological counseling" has reignited.

According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Government Legislation on September 15, the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced a draft for partial amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion of Mental Health and Welfare Services for Persons with Mental Disorders on the 7th.

The key point of the amendment is to add "the implementation of psychological counseling and disaster psychological support programs conducted by the government or local governments" to the list of common duties for mental health professionals. Mental health professionals are defined as those who have received specialized education and training in the mental health field and include four professions: clinical psychologists, mental health nurses, mental health social workers, and mental health occupational therapists.

The Ministry of Health and Welfare explains that the purpose of this amendment is not to create new work responsibilities for specific professions, but to codify duties that are already being carried out in the field. Since 2024, mental health professionals have been included as service providers in the "mental health psychological counseling voucher program" and serve as key personnel for disaster psychological support at disaster sites, highlighting the need to reflect these realities in the legislation.

There are also voices in the mental health academic community supporting the view that this amendment may clarify and institutionalize the roles and expertise required in the field. The Korean Association of Mental Health Social Workers issued a notice immediately after the draft announcement, welcoming the move as a way to clarify the roles and identities of mental health professionals, such as mental health social workers who have already been providing psychological counseling, and as a basis for enhancing their competencies related to psychological counseling. The Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing is similarly encouraging its members to submit opinions in support of the proposed amendment.

On the other hand, clinical psychologists are strongly opposed. The Korean Clinical Psychology Association argues that the amendment would in effect expand psychological counseling as a common duty for all mental health professionals, raising concerns about expertise and public safety. They contend that since the content and depth of university and graduate curricula, and clinical training, differ by professional field, the scope of work should not be expanded without separate competency standards or additional education and training.

They further emphasize that psychological counseling is not simply about providing emotional support or linking to welfare services, but rather a highly specialized intervention that involves evaluating a client's psychopathology and risk, and making proper referrals to medical institutions when needed. They warn that failing to appropriately identify high-risk individuals, such as those at risk for suicide, during counseling could undermine national mental health management, and are calling for a reconsideration of the amendment.

Interpretation of the amendment's scope is also a point of controversy. The amendment adds the performance of psychological counseling and disaster psychological support projects conducted by the central or local governments to the list of common duties, rather than permitting all private psychological counseling to all mental health professionals. The clinical psychology community points out that expanding counseling qualifications simply because it is a government project is inappropriate, and that types and targets of counseling, high-risk screening and referral criteria, and education and clinical training requirements must be specified in detail first.

The Korean Clinical Psychology Association held a press conference on the 11th in front of the Blue House in Jongno-gu, Seoul, urging the Ministry of Health and Welfare to withdraw the "Partial Amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Mental Health Welfare Act," which was announced for legislation on the 7th. Korean Clinical Psychology Association

Baek Sungman, president of the Korean Clinical Psychology Association and professor in the Department of Psychology at Dankook University, stated, "Psychological counseling is not simply a comforting conversation or administrative linkage; it is a highly specialized medical and clinical act that must be preceded by rigorous psychopathological differentiation and in-depth psychological assessment." He continued, "Defining psychological counseling as a common work responsibility for reasons of administrative convenience, while disregarding differences in education and clinical training between professions, constitutes a dereliction of duty that will undermine the national suicide prevention safety net and place the public's mental health at risk."

This amendment was previously pushed in June, only to be put on hold following disagreements between professions. After holding a press conference in protest on the 11th, the Korean Clinical Psychology Association plans to escalate its opposition with a rally in downtown Seoul on the 19th, bringing together clinical psychology professors, experts, graduate students, and related organizations nationwide.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.