Participants, including experts, representatives of religious organizations, and members of relevant State Duma committees, agreed that the document requires serious revision.
Criticism focused on several key issues:
-
Vague wording – The draft lacks clear definitions of psychological activity, principles of practice, and standards of care.
-
Education gaps – Around 47% of practicing psychologists have retraining certificates rather than formal degrees. The proposed three-year experience requirement for licensing sparked debate.
-
No safeguards against pseudoscience – The text fails to explicitly ban occult and esoteric practices masquerading as psychology.
-
"Psychological confidentiality" – Introducing this concept would require amendments to other laws, yet no implementation mechanism is specified. Concerns were also raised about allowing law enforcement to access confidential information without a court order.
Alternative Approach
Sardana Avksentieva, Deputy Chair of the State Duma Committee on State Building and Legislation, stated that the current draft is beyond repair and proposed developing an alternative version with input from professional communities. She was supported by other participants, including Yana Lantratova, who noted that without federal care standards, certification would become a mere formality.
Religious Concerns
Representatives of traditional faiths expressed concern that the law disregards spiritual and moral values. Mikhail Khasminsky, Head of the Crisis Psychology Center and co-chair of the State Duma working group on psychological support for SVO veterans and their families, warned about risks of industry monopolization and suppression of alternative methods, including faith-based counseling.
Framework Law vs. Detailed Regulation
Some experts, including Yury Zinchenko, Dean of Moscow State University’s Psychology Faculty, advocated for a framework law establishing basic definitions (e.g., "psychologist," "psychological care") while leaving details to secondary legislation. Others, like Artem Kiryanov, insisted on strict licensing requirements.
Outcome
Alexander Ternovtsov, Deputy Chair of the Public Chamber commission, concluded that while regulation is necessary, the current draft is unacceptable. The professional community favors drafting a revised version with broad expert involvement. Next steps include forming a working group and holding public discussions on an alternative proposal.
[Video recording of the roundtable available]