The Georgian Parliament has passed legislative amendments to create a database of people with mental health conditions, sparking a public debate. The authors of the law explained its necessity by citing public safety concerns, while critics pointed to the risk of further stigmatising psychiatry and the potential political exploitation of the data by the state.
The parliament, which is effectively controlled by the ruling Georgian Dream party together with its allies, adopted the amendments to the law on mental health and 14 other laws in their final reading on 9 December. The Interior Ministry is listed as the author of the amendments on the parliament’s website, while the government of Georgia is named as the initiator.
Under the amendments, the Health Ministry is required to establish and then administer a ‘unified information database of persons with mental health problems, alcoholism, drug addiction, and/or toxicomania’ by 1 March 2026. The ministry must also develop a criteria for entering data into the database.
Provisions concerning the database were added to the article of the law that regulates the protection of medical confidentiality.
Under the existing legislation, the disclosure of such confidential information to third parties is permitted ‘with the consent of the patient or their legal representative, or by a court decision’. Under the amendments, the disclosure envisaged by the article — including the release of data from the database — will also be allowed ‘by relevant institutions in cases defined by law’.
In the explanatory note accompanying the package of amendments, their necessity was justified by the ‘difficulties’ arising from the absence of a unified database, with the authors arguing that this prevents the state from properly implementing ‘mechanisms aimed at public safety’.
According to the authors, currently it is not possible to determine whether a person’s health status complies with legal requirements when providing services such as issuing firearms licences, granting the right to carry service-issued weapons, or issuing driving licences.
‘The possession of such licences (permits)/rights is associated with increased risk and requires the holder’s health status to be in constant compliance with the requirements of the legislation’, the bill’s authors said.
They also noted that, alongside the Health Ministry, the Interior Ministry will be ‘actively involved’ in the creation of the database.
Public safety or ‘another tool of intimidation’?
The justification put forward by the authors of the bill was quickly rejected by critics, who pointed to the risks associated with the proposed database, including concerns over sensitive data protection and the potential for manipulations by the state.
‘Mental health registries have one main problem: they identify and group people not according to their need for treatment, but according to their status’, wrote psychiatrist Nino Okribelashvili on Facebook.
‘In other words, if someone ends up in the registry once, they remain there not as a person, but as a category, which leads to stigma, control, and restrictions on rights,’ she added.
Okribelashvili listed examples from the recent past in various countries where similar registries were used to discriminate against citizens, deny them access to services, or subject them to state pressure or blackmail.
‘The key ethical question remains unanswered: who, and according to what criteria, will decide what constitutes “risk” and who will be considered a “threat” ? History has repeatedly shown that such registries can easily become tools of political, subjective, or bureaucratic persecution’, she concluded.
Nino Apakidze
Responding to the legislation on social media, Olga Kalina, who is registered in Georgia’s mental health programme, expressed concern about the risk of certain restrictions being imposed on her in the future, as well as possible mistrust from the authorities.
‘What worries me most is the prospect that if I ever need to call the police, they might not believe my words because they know about my mental health issues. Or they might send me to a court-ordered psychiatric (non-voluntary) evaluation to determine whether I am capable of giving testimony’, she wrote on Facebook.
‘Considering all these risks, I would not choose to apply to or receive treatment in the mental health programme. Others will likely reach the same conclusion, especially those for whom driving a car is important’, Kalina added.
The legislative amendments were also condemned by psychologist Jana Javakhishvili, who noted that ‘the already low usage of mental health and addiction services will drop even further,’ apparently highlighting the risk of increased stigma.
According to her, given the prevalence of ‘common mental disorders’ and their further rise in countries facing crises, ‘it follows that roughly one-third of our country’s population would have to be entered into a special Interior Ministry list by doctors and psychologists because of mental disorders’.
‘This is unprecedented discrimination!’, she added.
Javakhishvili also argued that with this step, the Georgian government is following a ‘Russian scenario,’ where a registry of people with mental disorders was created ‘to serve as yet another tool for intimidating and oppressing the population.’
This sentiment was echoed by psychologist and mental health specialist Elene Koridze in a recent opinion piece published on OC Media. She discussed the amendments in the context of restrictive legislations adopted amidst the Georgian government’s EU U-turn, noting that the recent changes ‘demonstrate that the country’s democratic progress has stalled and that the state is reverting to old mechanisms of control deeply rooted in the Soviet past.’
Elene Koridze
According to her, framing mental health as a public safety issue is ‘deeply misguided’, risking personal data confidentiality, deters people from seeking timely help, and reinforces stigma by portraying individuals with mental health conditions as ‘inherently dangerous’ or ‘violent’.
‘The government is disregarding international standards and constitutional rights, choosing instead to replicate authoritarian models in which ‘security’ is placed above citizens’ fundamental freedoms’, she wrote.
Such criticism was dismissed by Parliamentary Speaker Shalva Papuashvili, who called it ‘speculation’, noting that the state already has information about citizens’ health when providing services.
‘If a citizen has a mental health problem or any other issue and applies to the Health Ministry for funding, doesn’t the Health Ministry get informed what problem they have?!’ he stated, as cited by pro-government TV channel Imedi.
According to the independent online media outlet Netgazeti, Papuashvili also noted that ‘nothing special is happening’ and that ‘even more sensitive topics are already being collected by the state, since the state, including when providing services, gathers a lot of information’.
‘That’s why we have the personal data protection law, and why certain categories of personal data are specially protected’, he added.
The Georgian authorities have previously been condemned for what critics saw as the political instrumentalisation of psychiatry. The most notable case occurred in August, when the Prosecutor General’s Office requested a mandatory psychiatric evaluation for Nino Datashvili, an activist who was then in prison.
Mikheil Gvadzabia
