21/04/2026
Some thoughts on the present dilemma of the formal recognition of psychotherapy in Greece
It is difficult to see what is currently unfolding in the field of psychotherapy in Greece as coincidental.
The intensity of the debate around training, legitimacy, and licensing is emerging at the same time as a significant expansion of UK university presence in Greece, through collaborations with private colleges and psychotherapy institutes. These programmes now offer undergraduate degrees in Psychology (BSc/BA) and postgraduate pathways that often connect with psychotherapy training.
A concrete example of this model can be seen in collaborations such as those between ICPS and the University of Lancashire. In such structures, the institute delivers the training locally, while the university provides the academic framework and awards the degree. Academic standards, progression, and final validation are governed by the university system, even if elements of teaching and assessment are carried out within the partner institute.
This is not inherently problematic.
But it introduces a new layer into an already unresolved field.
Because what is being established through these collaborations is academic recognition, while the professional and legal status of psychotherapy in Greece remains undefined.
Even where a university partnership is fully legitimate academically, the central issue remains whether such collaborations should be allowed to shape de facto professional pathways in Greece before psychotherapy itself has been clearly defined and regulated by the competent health authorities.
At the same time, we are all working within a contradiction:
– psychotherapy is practised,
– it is invoiced through KAD codes,
– it is recognised in practice by bodies such as EOPYY,
– and yet it does not exist as a clearly regulated profession.
It is also important to ask how these developments have been institutionally framed. Collaborations between psychotherapy institutes and UK universities operate under recognition frameworks linked to the Ministry of Education. However, psychotherapy itself belongs to the domain of health regulation. This raises a legitimate question: to what extent has the Ministry of Health been involved in shaping or reviewing these pathways, given that they clearly lead toward clinical practice?
At present, educational routes are being expanded and normalised, while the professional framework they feed into remains undefined. This lack of alignment between educational policy and health regulation is not neutral — it is actively shaping the field before it has been formally settled.
There is also a wider context that cannot be ignored. Following Brexit, UK universities have faced a decline in EU student enrolment. The expansion of partnerships abroad, including in Greece, can reasonably be understood as part of a broader international strategy. This does not invalidate the programmes , but it does mean that educational expansion and market dynamics are now part of the same equation as professional regulation.
So what we are facing is not simply a disagreement between professions.
We are facing a structural misalignment:
– education is moving ahead,
– the market is adapting,
– but regulation is lagging behind.
And in this space, the field risks becoming trapped in a catch-22:
– The State hesitates to regulate because the field is fragmented.
– The field remains fragmented because there is no regulation.
– New pathways continue to expand in the absence of clarity.
This cycle can continue indefinitely , unless a coherent pathway is consciously created.
What would a constructive pathway look like?
1. Clear definition of the profession (Ministry of Health)
2. Establishment of core competency standards
3. Inclusive transitional framework
4. Alignment between Ministries
5. Clear distinction between academic knowledge and clinical competence
6. Ongoing professional oversight
Conclusion
The issue is not whether change is needed , it clearly is.
The issue is whether that change will emerge from a coherent, clinically grounded, and ethically robust process,
or whether it will be shaped implicitly by market forces, fragmented policy, and institutional expansion preceding regulation.
Because what is being decided now will not simply determine who is licensed.
It will determine:
what psychotherapy is understood to be, who is recognised to practise it,
and on what foundations the field will stand in the future.
