It´s partly true but the chance is very small to get into therapy through the public health care system unless you have severe conditions and diagnoses.

It´s perhaps some differences between the US and Sweden. Here most people can afford the health insurance itself but when you want to use it for paying therapy sessions, the insurances are very limited.

The unethical side of this matter is that any therapist with some experience knows about the fact that 10 times of therapy won´t be enough in many cases. That it´s enough in some cases doesn´t make it less unethical in my view.

My point is still that even if the therapy had some positive effects, and also so in my case, you let the client "out in the street" and being aware of the risk of that already before you start working with the client.

As all therapists work for the well-being of their clients I think none of them should take clients into their therapy room unless the insurance conditions tell them they can bill the insurance company as long as the clients need. Not setting up financial boundaries at first, in the therapists case agreeing to them, and then don´t care what happens to the client afterwards.

In my case I feel that even if the therapy also did me some good, the anxiety to be left without having a complete treatment is just causing my damage. In a vulnerable state you have to fight to get care somewhere else, not being sure you´ll get it. From the unfinished therapy you have to deal with emotional wounds, memories that were brought up but not completely dealt with and so on. Why start something you can´t finish when it comes to peoples´ health? That´s to me unethical for sure.

I don´t know if there are pro bono cases in Sweden but I assume the therapist have told me that would be an option if it was. I think asking for free sessions would be like telling her I don´t have respect for her or her occupation