Who Gets to Do Psychological Counseling: Korea's Enforcement-Decree Controversy

Recently in Korea, “who may provide psychological counseling” has become a heated institutional issue. At its center are the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s proposed decree amendment and the Korean Clinical Psychology Association’s strong objection. Rather than take a side, this post lays out what the issues are.

The following is based on reporting and association statements as of September 2026. The situation may change with subsequent legislative developments.

---

01. What happened

On September 7, 2026, Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare announced a proposed amendment to the enforcement decree of the Mental Health Welfare Act. It would add “carrying out psychological counseling and disaster psychological support programs run by the state or local governments” to the shared duties of four mental health professional tracks (clinical psychology, nursing, social work, occupational therapy).¹

On September 11, the Korean Clinical Psychology Association held a press conference in front of the presidential office demanding full withdrawal, and filed an objection with the Ministry the same day. It announced that, if its demands were not met, it would hold a nationwide mass rally on September 19 with professors, specialists, and trainees.¹²

02. Issue 1. What kind of act is counseling

The most fundamental issue is what kind of expert act “psychological counseling” is.

The association regards counseling as a clinical act distinct from mere interview, emotional support, or resource linkage. It describes a process grounded in psychological theory: assessing a client’s problems, screening for pathology, judging suicide/self-harm risk, and handling symptom change through case conceptualization and a treatment plan.¹

“Counseling without assessment misses warning signs; counseling without screening delays appropriate care linkage,” the association’s president was reported as saying.³

03. Issue 2. Training and verification

The second issue is whether each track has verified training to perform counseling.

According to the association, within the current mental-health-professional training curriculum, the track with psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, advanced psychotherapy, group therapy, and family therapy as required coursework is clinical psychology. The counseling-adjacent coursework in nursing, social work, and occupational therapy differs, consisting of psychiatric nursing intervention, psychosocial assessment and intervention, and mental health occupational therapy intervention, respectively.¹

Procedural concerns were also raised: the four tracks ran three consultative-body meetings in July–August but reached no agreement, and the amendment was announced less than three weeks after individual objections were filed. The association also noted that while the decree expands scope, the enforcement rule specifying training coursework and hours stays unchanged.¹

04. Issue 3. Patient safety

The third is patient safety.

State counseling programs may draw in not only mild cases but also high suicide-risk individuals, early psychosis, and severe depression. The association worries that if counseling proceeds without sufficiently guaranteed risk-assessment and pathology-screening capacity, appropriate care linkage could be delayed or warning signs missed.¹

That said, the association drew a line: it recognizes that interviews, emotional support, education, and case management in nursing, social work, and occupational therapy are also important expert acts of each track. The issue is whether it’s appropriate to subsume these under the same legal duty name, “psychological counseling,” as the clinical psychologist’s distinct work.¹

05. The association’s alternatives

The association proposed three revisions to the Ministry.¹²

1. Delete “psychological counseling” from the amendment and keep the current track-by-track duty structure.
2. If a shared counseling duty is needed, rename it “mental health counseling” and define its scope clearly.
3. Re-gather each track’s views on training standards and high-risk safety management before deciding whether to amend.

The association’s proposed “mental health counseling” means initial interviews, supportive intervention, motivational enhancement, information provision, early crisis response, and service guidance/linkage aimed at prevention, early detection, and mental health promotion.

06. SYMPLE’s view

We see this debate as the point where access and expertise collide.

We deeply share the policy’s intent to broaden the base of mental health services. Programs that bring more people into counseling, like the National Mind Investment Support Program, are clearly needed. At the same time, the wider the entrance to counseling, the more important the capacity to screen risk and link to appropriate care becomes.

This connects to how we see technology. In KKEBI, voice and language signals are not a judge that rules on people but a supporting signal for understanding change. Technology can play a base-widening role, prompting more people to check in on their state more often, yet screening risk and linking to care ultimately remain the job of sufficiently trained humans. Widening and safeguarding are not an either/or; they must be designed together.

---

References

---

The institutional trend and the broader landscape of digital mental health continue in the next post.

Updates: Instagram (@symple.kr).

Footnotes

1. “‘Psychological counseling’ as shared duty of four tracks… Clinical Psychology Association demands ‘full withdrawal’,” Medipana News, 2026-09-12. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

2. “Psychology field objects to ‘shared-duty’ counseling… ‘training standards first’,” Medipana News (Medician), 2026. ↩ ↩²

3. “‘Counseling without assessment or screening is dangerous’… Clinical Psychology Association objects to the Ministry’s decree,” Money Today, 2026-09-14. ↩