Psychologist Suspended for Two Years After Falling in Love With Patient

A psychologist, Maya Naveh, has been suspended for two years from practicing her profession after developing romantic feelings for a patient and continuing to treat her. The Ministry of Health's disciplinary committee found her guilty of inappropriate conduct and severe negligence. Naveh is appealing the severity of her sentence to the Haifa District Court.

According to the committee's ruling, in July 2020, Naveh informed her supervisor at Clalit Health Services that her patient had expressed romantic feelings for her after five months of therapy. Naveh's own feelings intensified, becoming a subject within the therapy sessions. About a year into the treatment, Naveh felt she was falling in love with the patient. She continued the therapy for another year and a half, eventually ending it in February 2022 because she felt the patient was the person she wanted to be with. The patient was aware of the stated reason for ending the treatment.

Approximately three months after the therapy concluded, an intimate and romantic relationship developed between the two. The committee determined that initiating such a relationship shortly after long-term psychotherapy, which inherently creates dependency, constitutes an ethical and professional boundary violation that began during the treatment itself. Naveh struggled to maintain professional distance and end the therapy appropriately.

Naveh argued that no romantic relationship existed during therapy, only after its conclusion, between two consenting adults without exploitation. She also contended that feelings arising during therapy are not unusual, that she consulted professionally, and that a relationship after therapy is not inherently forbidden. However, the disciplinary committee rejected her arguments.

The committee stated that the violation was not the emergence of feelings but Naveh's failure to take adequate professional steps to protect the therapeutic relationship's boundaries after realizing the emotional dynamic had exceeded normal limits. Specifically, the committee found Naveh deviated from professional standards by continuing therapy after romantic feelings were revealed, by sharing her own feelings with the patient, blurring the lines between therapy and personal life, and by continuing treatment even when she admitted it was difficult to maintain professional distance. She also failed to create a clear and immediate separation between the therapeutic relationship and the possibility of a personal or romantic one.

While acknowledging the human and emotional complexity of the case and not doubting the sincerity of their feelings, the committee emphasized that the relationship originated in a therapeutic context governed by professional rules. They reviewed the situation from the perspective of professional duties, therapeutic boundaries, and public interest, not solely from a personal viewpoint.

Naveh's appeal asserts that her sentence is disproportionately severe, citing past precedents where suspensions were reserved for much graver offenses. She argues that this case, involving a consensual romantic relationship that began after therapy ended and with no patient complaint, constitutes at most professional negligence, not an ethical or moral failing. Naveh contends that since the committee itself found no exploitation and did not justify a five-year suspension, a two-year suspension, or any suspension at all, is unwarranted given the specific circumstances. She also argues that a two-year suspension would end her career and livelihood.