What if a therapist shared your secrets?
What if no one stopped them?
EAGT knew. And did nothing...
Timeline Of The Events:
The Ethical Breach
WHAT HAPPENED?
In June 2024, Jan Z. submitted a formal complaint to the EAGT after Ivana Z., a licensed Gestalt therapist and EAGT member, disclosed his confidential psychiatric report in Serbian court proceedings—without his consent and without a court order.
Although he was not her client, such conduct still constitutes a gross breach of professional ethics, particularly confidentiality.
The EAGT’s Handling
-
7 June 2024 – EAGT Ethics Chair acknowledged receipt and requested supporting evidence.
-
12–14 June 2024 – Jan submitted:
-
A blinded copy of the psychiatric report,
-
A letter from his psychiatrist confirming he never authorized its use,
-
A sworn statement from his attorney confirming that Ivana Z. submitted the report to court.
-
-
14 June 2024 – EAGT confirmed that the committee would review the complaint in their meetings scheduled for the second week of July.
-
24 July 2024 – After Jan received no update, he sent a follow-up request, and only then did EAGT inform him that the committee could not make a definitive decision due to “insufficient evidence.”
The Second Breach
THE SECOND BREACH
-
August 2024 – February 2025 – The delay during this phase was on Jan's side, as he was dealing with serious health issues. Despite that, he eventually managed to obtain and submit a court transcript from Slovakia, showing that Ivana Z. had disclosed the same confidential report again—this time in a second country, again without his consent.
-
28 February 2025 – Jan submitted this new evidence and explicitly stated in his email that had the committee acted earlier, this second ethical breach might have been prevented.
SURPRISING OUTCOME
-
7 March 2025 – The Ethics Committee replied that the case fell outside their remit, describing it as a legal matter between former spouses.
-
March 2025 – Jan formally objected, emphasizing:
-
This is not a personal conflict, but a repeated professional ethics violation,
-
The therapist’s actions breached multiple articles of EAGT’s own Code of Ethics (e.g. B.3, B.8.12, B.8.13),
-
That legal proceedings and ethical accountability are not mutually exclusive.
-
-
24 March 2025 – EAGT responded that the disclosure by a registered Gestalt therapist remains a serious concern and that the Committee would reconsider the matter.
-
BUT SINCE THEN: No resolution, no disciplinary action, and no further response. It's been 106 days and still counting. Meanwhile the therapist remains in good standing with EAGT...
WHY THIS MATTERS?
EAGT’s own Code of Ethics is unambiguous:
-
B.3 Confidentiality: Members must not disclose identifiable information without consent.
-
B.8.13 Detrimental Activities: Members must avoid behavior that damages the profession’s ethical standards.
Ivana Z. disclosed the same confidential psychiatric report in two separate countries, without consent, and in both cases in the context of legal proceedings. Despite clear documentation and repeated evidence, the Ethics Committee:
-
Delayed response, then cited “insufficient evidence,”
-
Dismissed responsibility, referring to jurisdictional limitations,
-
Failed to act, even after acknowledging that the ethical concerns were valid.
CONCERN
If ethical codes only apply when the victim is a client, then they are meaningless.
If professional obligations cease to exist in personal or legal disputes, then therapists have a loophole to act unethically without consequence.
And if EAGT’s Ethics Committee cannot—or will not—address a case this clear, how many other violations go unpunished under its watch?
Let the public judge not only the actions of one therapist—but the accountability and credibility of the organization...
The identities of all individuals involved have been verified by the editorial team. For details please contact us at teameditorial@proton.me