CCHR: Europe Rejects Forced Psychiatry—Landmark Vote Declares Coercive Practices Incompatible with Human Rights

LOS ANGELES - PrZen -- By CCHR International

The United States is increasingly isolated in its continued reliance on forced psychiatric commitment and treatment, as global human rights institutions move decisively to end coercive mental health practices. Following a landmark unanimous vote in Europe rejecting the expansion of involuntary psychiatric detention and treatment, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) is urging U.S. policymakers to bring American mental health law into alignment with international human rights standards that prioritize autonomy, dignity, and voluntary care.

On January 28, 2026, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) unanimously rejected a proposed Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention—a protocol that would have expanded and legitimized involuntary psychiatric detention and treatment across Europe.

The vote came just days after the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities issued a formal statement on January 15, urging governments to "move towards the end of the use of any form of coercion in the provision of mental health policies and services for persons with disabilities." The Committee warned that the proposed protocol would violate international human rights law and obstruct efforts to abolish coercive psychiatric practices.[1]

PACE agreed. In rejecting the protocol, the Assembly concluded it would have made it "more difficult to abolish coercive practices in mental health services" and emphasized that countries should instead "focus their efforts on respect for the autonomy of persons, in line with the CRPD's guidance," with the ultimate objective of phasing out involuntary measures altogether.

The vote brings to an abrupt end a more than decade-long effort to expand involuntary commitment under the banner of "human rights."

Ms. Carmen Leyte, a Spanish physician and parliamentarian tasked with investigating the protocol, spoke on behalf of PACE's Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. Following extensive consultations—including exchanges with organizations representing people with psychosocial disabilities—she emphatically opposed the protocol, citing grave human rights concerns.

Notably, the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) supported the protocol, despite warnings from UN bodies and civil society organizations that it conflicted with binding international human rights standards. CCHR had previously warned that the protocol would legalize coercion rather than protect rights.

During the PACE debate, advocacy groups from across Europe reinforced these concerns. A representative from Spain stated: "For too long, we have viewed disability through an obsolete medical model that treats human beings as objects of treatment rather than subjects of rights. This protocol seeks to legally shield the use of force, allowing medical decisions to override human will. We are told that coercion is 'necessary,' but the evidence says otherwise. There is no clinical evidence supporting the therapeutic benefits of involuntary institutionalization. On the contrary, the risks are devastating. Research shows that the risk of suicide for those involuntarily interned is 55 times higher than in the general population. And further, coercion does not heal; it traumatizes."

Other representatives echoed this position:

Romania: "Coercion should not be normalized but progressively reduced and replaced with more humane and effective forms of support... This Convention makes clear that disability… must never justify deprivation of liberty or forced treatment."

France: "When it comes to involuntary admission to mental health care services, more than in any other area, freedom must be the rule and coercion the exception."

Iceland: "Applying coercion can never be a starting point."

Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International, stated: "The unanimous PACE decision signals far more than a policy defeat for the psychiatric establishment. It reflects a profound shift in institutional thinking. Practices once defended as 'necessary' are now widely recognized as incompatible with dignity, liberty, and fundamental human rights."

Despite this global shift, the United States remains out of step. Although the CRPD was adopted in 2007 and drew heavily on U.S. disability-rights principles, the United States has never ratified the treaty, due to its own prior enacted Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, the ADA has not been updated to reflect the adopted CRPD's explicit protections against forced psychiatric institutionalization and treatment.[2]

Rather, its protections are largely confined to employment discrimination and public accommodations.[3]

The CRPD Committee has further emphasized that persons with disabilities experiencing individual crises should never be subjected to institutionalization. Such crises should not be treated as medical problems requiring forced treatment, nor as social problems justifying state intervention through forced drugging or confinement.

CCHR, which was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and professor of psychiatry, Dr. Thomas Szasz, said that the European decision demonstrates that sustained, evidence-based advocacy grounded in human rights can overcome even deeply entrenched psychiatric power structures.

Sources:

[1] "Statement of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: time for the Council of Europe to withdraw the draft Additional Protocol to the Convention for 'the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being regarding the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No 164),'" Committee CRPD, 15 Jan 2026, www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crpd/statements-declarations-and-observations

[2] civilrights.org/blog/the-united-states-still-hasnt-ratified-the-disability-rights-treaty/#

[3] legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/a/americans-with-disabilities-act