Petition to the Parliament (Riigikogu)

We, the undersigned, propose that the Riigikogu amend the Mental Health Act (Psühhiaatrilise abi seadus) , the Work Ability Allowance Act, and the State Pension Insurance Act in a manner that:

1. limits involuntary psychiatric treatment in peacetime strictly to cases of immediate and already realized physical danger;
2. prohibits preventive and prognosis-based involuntary hospitalization;
3. renders psychiatric diagnosis administratively neutral;
4. transfers work ability assessment fully to a functional basis under the competence of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

We propose amendments to the Mental Health Act, the Work Ability Allowance Act, and the State Pension Insurance Act in a way that ensures stronger protection of personal liberty in peacetime and makes work ability assessment fairer and more functional.

In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, deprivation of liberty must be a measure of last resort. The state must not restrict a person’s freedom solely on the basis of prognosis, hypothetical danger, or diagnosis.

The Nature of the Problem

The current regulation allows involuntary hospitalization in peacetime in situations where a person may endanger themselves or others. Such wording is based on an assessment of future risk rather than on an already realized act.

This means that a person’s liberty may be restricted before they have committed any concrete and proven harm.

In a state governed by the rule of law, any restriction of liberty must be:

• clearly defined;
• unavoidable;
• proportionate;
• linked to proven, real, and immediate danger.

There were 275,465 mental health-related treatment cases in 2024. The launched "Mental Health Industry" has been regulated in a way that devalues ​​people's fundamental rights, human rights, and the principles of equal treatment and needs to be humanized.

In addition, the practice of determining work ability and pension entitlement is heavily diagnosis-centered. This may not reflect a person’s actual functional capacity and does not necessarily support active participation in the labor market.

Our Proposals

1. Clear and Narrow Grounds for Involuntary Treatment

In peacetime, the state may intervene involuntarily only if:

• the person has committed an ongoing physical assault or act of self-harm;
• the danger is immediate and proven;
• other less intrusive measures do not eliminate the danger.

A prognosis, hypothetical risk, or diagnosis must not serve as grounds for deprivation of liberty.

In the case of minors, support from a family doctor, social worker, and/or therapist with parental consent should primarily be considered sufficient.

2. Prohibition of Preventive Involuntary Hospitalization

In peacetime, a person must not be hospitalized solely due to a possible future risk or an estimated danger.

3. Clear Time Limits

• Without a court order: maximum of 6 hours.
• With a court order: maximum of 72 hours.
• Further treatment only on a voluntary basis or pursuant to a court decision in criminal proceedings.

4. Archiving

All cases of involuntary treatment shall be archived after 12 months in a restricted-access form, unless there is a new judicial basis.

5. Reform of Work Ability and Pension Assessment

• Work ability assessment must be based on actual functional capacity, not diagnosis.
• A diagnosis must not serve as an automatic basis for reduced work ability or pension entitlement.
• Competence for work ability assessment must be consolidated under the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
• Medical assessment must be advisory, not decisive.

Why Is This Necessary?

• It strengthens constitutional protection of personal liberty (Constitution § 20).
• It ensures compliance with the principle of proportionality (Constitution § 11).
• It reduces the use of medical prognosis as a basis for state coercive power.
• eliminates discrimination based on diagnosis code
• ensures equal treatment regardless of WHO diagnosis code in the healthcare and judicial systems
• It makes the social system more transparent and functional.
• It promotes rehabilitation and active participation in the labor market.

What This Initiative Does Not Do

• It does not restrict voluntary treatment.
• It does not abolish crisis assistance.
• It does not reduce the state’s obligation to protect life and health.

Our objective is to establish a clear boundary for when the state may restrict a person’s liberty in peacetime.

The Supreme Court may ask: Does the state fulfill its obligation under Constitution § 28 to protect life?

Therefore, a compromise may be necessary:

• To allow intervention only if, in addition to a prognosis, there is documented evidence of a prior serious act of violence.

Petition

We ask the Riigikogu to:

1. initiate the corresponding legislative amendments;
2. commission a constitutional and social impact assessment;
3. reform work ability assessment on a functional and diagnosis-independent basis.

In peacetime, the coercive power of the state must be minimal and clearly limited.

Personal liberty is a central value of a democratic society.