As a legal practitioner, and as someone who has friends within the medical community, I find your outrage odd. There's a reason why civil courts and judges are

As a legal practitioner, and as someone who has friends within the medical community, I find your outrage odd. There's a reason why civil courts and judges are often given leeway to decide against the reception of expert testimony - because not all experts really are so. Especially in something like psychology - which isn't really science per se - you'd expect the courts to be more guarded against possible quacks. Just because you owe your life to psychologist help, doesn't mean that psychologists are all acceptable. You also didn't read between the fine lines - a satirical document had passed the senate as possible law by "unanimous approval". Which means that the lawmakers who voted in favour didn't really read or consider what was being passed. That's even more embarassing.