What the 8 May 2026 BIG disciplinary ruling means for psilocybin therapy in the Netherlands

What happened on 8 May 2026?

On 8 May 2026 the Amsterdam Regional Disciplinary Tribunal for Healthcare published two nearly identical rulings against the same person: one in her capacity as clinical psychologist ([ECLI:NL:TGZRAMS:2026:102](https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/zoeken/resultaat/uitspraak/2026/ECLI_NL_TGZRAMS_2026_102)) and one in her capacity as psychotherapist ([ECLI:NL:TGZRAMS:2026:103](https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/zoeken/resultaat/uitspraak/2026/ECLI_NL_TGZRAMS_2026_103)). The complaint was filed by the [Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate](https://www.igj.nl/) (IGJ) and covered four allegations: three treatment sessions between 2021 and 2023 in which a patient used psilocybin-containing truffles, insufficient collegial consultation, insufficient record-keeping, and a two-day psilocybin retreat in November 2024 offered under the label "coach".

For both capacities the tribunal imposed the same measure: a conditional six-month suspension with a two-year probation period, plus the condition that the psychologist may only work under supervision for twelve months. The ruling ordered publication in [Medisch Contact](https://www.medischcontact.nl/), [De Psycholoog](https://www.psynip.nl/de-psycholoog/), [Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie](https://www.tijdschriftvoorpsychotherapie.nl/) and [Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht](https://www.tijdschriftvoorgezondheidsrecht.nl/). The tribunal anonymised the ruling and we follow suit.

Patient initiative does not relieve the therapist of responsibility

The patient used the truffles on her own initiative, in advance of the sessions. The tribunal holds that this does not diminish the practitioner's responsibility. By organising three consecutive sessions around that use, the psychologist "facilitated a treatment that included psilocybin-containing truffles" and thereby pulled the substance into her treatment (paragraph 5.7 of ECLI:NL:TGZRAMS:2026:102). A BIG practitioner who provides therapy around a psychedelic substance is responsible for its effect on the care relationship, regardless of who supplied the substance.

Psilocybin falls outside the mental health care norm because it is experimental

The tribunal explicitly states that psilocybin "at the time of the conduct, and still today" remains in an experimental phase within mental health care (paragraph 5.8). The [Dutch Association for Psychiatry](https://www.psychiatrie.nl/) (NVvP) confirms this in its [Memorandum on Psychedelics in Psychiatry, October 2024](https://www.psychiatrie.nl/app/uploads/2025/01/Memorandum-psychedelica-in-de-psychiatrie_okt-2024-def.pdf): psychedelics are "not yet available for therapy". The [Trimbos Institute](https://www.trimbos.nl/actueel/nieuws/psychedelica-in-therapie-wat-weten-we/) reaches the same reading. The tribunal therefore does not rely only on the Dutch Opium Act but on the broader professional norm: in the Netherlands in 2026 there is no written professional standard that situates psilocybin within regular mental health care.

When deviating from the norm: collegial consultation and a medical director

The psychologist, the tribunal finds, decided to carry out the sessions "without consulting colleagues and supervisors". In doing so she acted contrary to competency area 3 (Collaboration) in the clinical psychologist training curriculum (paragraph 5.14). The message is procedural rather than substantive: a practitioner who wishes to deviate from the prevailing norm must do so in consultation with a medical director and colleagues, not alone.

The record must reflect reality, even if the client wishes otherwise

The patient asked that the psilocybin use be kept out of the file. The psychologist honoured that request. The tribunal holds that she should not have done so (paragraph 5.22). The record-keeping duty under [Article 7:454 of the Dutch Civil Code](https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0005290&boek=7&titeldeel=7&afdeling=5&artikel=454) obliges a care provider to record accurately, even when the client prefers otherwise. The remaining option is to decline the treatment under that condition, not to sanitise the file.

The coach hat doctrine: intertwinement pulls activity within disciplinary jurisdiction

The two-day psilocybin retreat was offered under the label "coach". The tribunal holds that this distinction does not hold up (paragraphs 5.26 through 5.28). The retreat was announced on LinkedIn from the psychologist's professional profile, with her BIG registrations visible above the offer. By "deploying her professional skill" toward goals such as psychological recovery the tribunal finds such intertwinement with her BIG-registered practice that the two cannot be separated. Verwevenheid (intertwinement doctrine in Dutch disciplinary law) is an established doctrine under [Article 47, first paragraph, sub b, Wet BIG](https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0006251&hoofdstuk=VII&paragraaf=1&artikel=47) (the so-called second disciplinary norm). A BIG title therefore cannot be set aside by writing "coach" on the business card of a psychedelic programme when the content flows from clinical competencies.

Can a BIG-registered psychologist offer psilocybin therapy in the Netherlands?

Not within regular mental health care. The only permissible route is a study approved by the [Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects](https://www.ccmo.nl/) (CCMO) and registered in the [CCMO Research Portal](https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en). Since March 2025 the Netherlands has been running an international trial on [psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression at UMCG and UMC Utrecht](https://nieuws.umcg.nl/w/experimentele-behandeling-hardnekkige-depressie-met-psilocybine-van-start) with 216 patients enrolled. Outside that type of research, psilocybin therapy by a BIG practitioner is now subject to disciplinary censure even when the patient requests it.

Can someone offer psilocybin retreats "as a coach"?

After this ruling it is considerably harder for anyone holding a BIG registration in another capacity. The verwevenheid doctrine collapses the separation between "coach" and "psychologist" once the offer leans on clinical competencies or is advertised with BIG credentials. A previously stand-alone "coach offer" now falls within BIG disciplinary jurisdiction under those conditions.

What about non-BIG facilitators?

For facilitators without a BIG registration the legal context is different. BIG disciplinary law does not apply to them. The Dutch Opium Act still applies to the substance itself: [psilocybin sits on Schedule I](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001941/2024-07-01) (see also our article on [whether magic mushrooms are legal in the Netherlands](https://psychedelica.nl/articles/zijn-paddos-legaal-nederland/)). Truffles (sclerotia) as a product are not yet on that schedule, which has historically allowed the Dutch retreat sector to operate (see also [whether truffles are regulated or quality-tested in the Netherlands](https://psychedelica.nl/articles/worden-truffels-gereguleerd-getest-kwaliteit-nederland/)). This ruling does not change the legal status of the product itself, but it does say something about the care relationship within which it is deployed.

What the ruling does NOT mean

Three misreadings are easy to make and should be addressed directly.

First, there is no ban on psilocybin research in the Netherlands. CCMO-approved studies continue and remain the only permissible route. The European [PsyPal consortium](https://www.rug.nl/rcs/news/archive/2024/european-union-funds-groundbreaking-research-into-psychedelic-therapy), with 6.5 million euros of Horizon Europe funding and coordinated by UMCG, is studying psilocybin for psychological suffering in patients with progressive incurable illness.

Second, the ruling does not criminalise patient psilocybin use. Disciplinary law targets the practitioner, not the patient. Psilocybin-containing truffles as a product remain outside Schedule I for now (see [the legal difference between truffles and magic mushrooms](https://psychedelica.nl/articles/verschil-truffels-paddos-wet/)).

Third, this is not a judgment on the safety or effectiveness of psilocybin therapy in general terms. The tribunal says something specific: that current Dutch law and the professional norm do not yet have a place for it outside research. The tribunal does add that there is no scientific evidence that psilocybin offers added value for people without a diagnosed psychological condition (paragraph 5.29). That is a factual observation, not a verdict on clinical research in diagnosed populations.

How the field develops further

Internationally, three models locate the Dutch position as one choice within a wider spectrum.

Switzerland has run a programme since 2014 under the [Federal Office of Public Health](https://www.bag.admin.ch/) (BAG) in which physicians can obtain an exemption for individual psilocybin or MDMA treatments under strict conditions, the so-called "Beschränkte Medizinische Anwendung". By early 2025 around 100 physicians had carried out approximately [4,500 treatments](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40800003/) between them, restricted to severe conditions where conventional treatment is insufficient.

Oregon chose a different model in 2020 with [Measure 109](https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/pages/oregon-psilocybin-services.aspx): a wellness path with licensed service centres and licensed facilitators, separate from the medical sector. By early 2026 there are around 22 operational service centres, roughly 15,000 clients have been served cumulatively, and a [peer-reviewed first-year evaluation](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1777387/full) reports an adverse-event rate of approximately 0.15 percent.

Australia chose a third route in 2023. The [Therapeutic Goods Administration](https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/change-classification-psilocybin-and-mdma-enable-prescribing-authorised-psychiatrists) reclassified psilocybin and MDMA to Schedule 8 (controlled medicines) for prescription by authorised psychiatrists. Practical uptake so far remains [relatively slow](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39701143/).

None of these three jurisdictions uses the Dutch path, in which BIG disciplinary jurisdiction outside scientific research is the only professional filter. The direction that the Netherlands can move must come through science and the legislator, not via individual BIG-registered professionals operating outside the current norm. The tribunal itself notes (paragraph 5.40) that recidivism without a change in norm carries "serious risks for healthcare".

What to do if you are considering psilocybin support

The ruling does not change the question many readers actually have: how do you assess an offer critically? Four questions are practical enough to put to any provider.

Does the provider work within a research protocol approved by CCMO? In 2026 that is the only permissible route for BIG-registered practitioners. The CCMO Research Portal shows which studies are running in the Netherlands.

What training and credentials does the provider hold? The tribunal found that training programmes not registered in the [CRKBO register](https://www.crkbo.nl/) or not accredited by the [Federation of Health Care Psychologists and Psychotherapists](https://www.fgzpt.nl/) (FGzPt) fall short as quality markers (paragraphs 3.12 and 5.9 of ECLI:NL:TGZRAMS:2026:102).

What record-keeping is in place? The record-keeping duty protects you as a client. Ask whether records are kept and which law governs that record-keeping.

What happens if something goes wrong? Which medical back-up is arranged, which crisis contacts are pre-agreed, how is safety in a dissociative phase secured? For harm reduction and independent information, [Jellinek](https://www.jellinek.nl/) and [Unity](https://unity.nl/) offer accessible entry points.

Sources

Primary case law

[Amsterdam Regional Disciplinary Tribunal for Healthcare, 8 May 2026, ECLI:NL:TGZRAMS:2026:102 (clinical psychologist)](https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/zoeken/resultaat/uitspraak/2026/ECLI_NL_TGZRAMS_2026_102)

[Amsterdam Regional Disciplinary Tribunal for Healthcare, 8 May 2026, ECLI:NL:TGZRAMS:2026:103 (psychotherapist)](https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/zoeken/resultaat/uitspraak/2026/ECLI_NL_TGZRAMS_2026_103)

Statutes

[Wet BIG, Article 47](https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0006251&hoofdstuk=VII&paragraaf=1&artikel=47)

[Dutch Civil Code, Article 7:454](https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0005290&boek=7&titeldeel=7&afdeling=5&artikel=454)

[Dutch Opium Act (Schedule I)](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001941/2024-07-01)

Professional codes and training curricula

[NIP professional code for psychologists](https://www.psynip.nl/het-nip/beroepsethiek/beroepscode/)

[NVP professional code for psychotherapists](https://www.psychotherapie.nl/beroepscode)

[FGzPt training curricula](https://www.fgzpt.nl/opleidingsplannen/)

[CRKBO register](https://www.crkbo.nl/)

Dutch science and mental health care framing

[NVvP Memorandum on Psychedelics in Psychiatry (October 2024)](https://www.psychiatrie.nl/app/uploads/2025/01/Memorandum-psychedelica-in-de-psychiatrie_okt-2024-def.pdf)

[Trimbos Institute on psychedelics in therapy](https://www.trimbos.nl/actueel/nieuws/psychedelica-in-therapie-wat-weten-we/)

[Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie (2025)](https://www.tijdschriftvoorpsychiatrie.nl/nl/artikelen/article/50-13532_Psychedelica-bij-de-behandeling-van-psychiatrische-aandoeningen-anno-2025)

[CCMO](https://www.ccmo.nl/)

[CCMO Research Portal](https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en)

[UMCG on the psilocybin trial (March 2025)](https://nieuws.umcg.nl/w/experimentele-behandeling-hardnekkige-depressie-met-psilocybine-van-start)

[PsyPal (RUG, Horizon Europe)](https://www.rug.nl/rcs/news/archive/2024/european-union-funds-groundbreaking-research-into-psychedelic-therapy)

International comparators

[Switzerland (Liechti et al., PubMed)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40800003/)

[Oregon Health Authority](https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/pages/oregon-psilocybin-services.aspx)

[Oregon first-year evaluation (Frontiers in Psychiatry)](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1777387/full)

[Australia TGA reclassification](https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/change-classification-psilocybin-and-mdma-enable-prescribing-authorised-psychiatrists)

[Australia TGA update (PubMed)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39701143/)

Inspectorate and harm reduction

[Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ)](https://www.igj.nl/)

[Jellinek](https://www.jellinek.nl/)

[Unity](https://unity.nl/)

Related cluster articles (NL)

[Are magic mushrooms legal in the Netherlands?](https://psychedelica.nl/articles/zijn-paddos-legaal-nederland/)

[Are truffles regulated or quality-tested in the Netherlands?](https://psychedelica.nl/articles/worden-truffels-gereguleerd-getest-kwaliteit-nederland/)

[What is the legal difference between truffles and magic mushrooms?](https://psychedelica.nl/articles/verschil-truffels-paddos-wet/)