Chile: The Perils of Psychology Treated as a Market Item
When emotional suffering becomes a commodity
HAVANA TIMES – Saying that Chile was the first country in the world to implement a neoliberal model — during the Pinochet military dictatorship and later with the return to democracy — privatizing practically everything (health, education, pensions, housing, water), is something that has been stated and studied repeatedly. It is not new.
The problem lies in the fact that this extreme neoliberal logic has permeated many areas, including the field of mental health and, in particular, clinical psychology. Surprisingly, little to nothing is said about it, without serious reflection, especially from those of us who have sought psychological care throughout our lives, expecting rigorous and responsible work from mental health professionals.
For that reason, it is essential to expose the lack of regulation in clinical psychology in Chile. This can be seen not only in the absence of any obligation for professionals to join a professional association, but also in the lack of a law that binds clinical specialties and establishes requirements such as strict postgraduate training to practice private therapy. In practice, any licensed psychologist can treat patients with complete freedom.
To this we must add the enormous number of universities — many with questionable academic quality — that offer psychology degrees, making it one of the most massive programs in the country. Given how poorly regulated it is, this situation represents a significant danger for people who seek psychotherapy, as they often encounter professionals without adequate clinical training or experience. This can lead to poorly conducted therapeutic processes that may even worsen the user’s mental health.
Unfortunately, this deregulation has become normalized throughout the country, in stark contrast to what happens in other nations. In countries such as Spain and the United States, access to clinical practice is strictly controlled through licenses, national exams, and mandatory professional associations; in Canada, a doctorate is even required to practice clinically in many cases.
In Chile, by contrast, a psychology degree alone is enough to open a private office and call oneself a therapist of any orientation. This is gravely irresponsible, considering how long and costly a therapeutic process can be. Moreover, since the pandemic, many professionals have opted to work exclusively online, often neglecting the real needs of users.
It seems that in Chile the market — with its logic of supply and demand — ends up being the main regulator of clinical psychology. It is enough for a psychologist to build an attractive profile on social media, accumulate likes, request reviews (often from acquaintances) on platforms such as Doctoralia or Encuadrado, and set prices accordingly, in order to quickly attract users.
Consequently, all of this reflects a neoliberal model that permeates even the sphere of subjectivity and emotional suffering, treating them as just another commodity or individual product in the marketplace, without greater state regulation. On the one hand, it generates a vast supply and access for different sectors (in price, therapy types, and approaches); on the other hand, it exposes people to any kind of professional, with the risks that implies.
How, then, can one distinguish between a therapist with solid training and experience and another who merely disguises themselves as such, taking advantage of the lack of oversight and binding ethical standards? It is true that the Chilean Association of Psychologists, as a voluntary professional organization, has pushed for reforms (specialty certifications, a mandatory code of ethics), but it runs up against a system that prioritizes economic freedom over user protection.
This is not about demanding authoritarian state control that threatens the diversity of approaches in psychology, but about establishing minimum standards that protect the dignity of users: mandatory professional association for clinical practice, a public registry of accredited specialties, effective ethical oversight, and mandatory continuing education. Otherwise, we will continue condemning many people to a wild market in which mental health is negotiated like any other good.
The practice of clinical psychology is not built in a regulatory vacuum nor on the denial of users’ rights. It requires frameworks that guarantee that the therapist is not merely a service provider, but an ethical and competent companion. If the market remains the supreme judge, Chilean psychology will continue to be a distorted mirror of our society: open and diverse, yet profoundly unequal and unprotected.