From Pills to Punishment: MEPs Demand Justice for Hospitalized Minors

In a recent session of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions (PETI), a compelling case was made by the French association Citizens Commission for Human Rights (CCDH-France). The petition highlighted systemic violations of children’s fundamental rights in psychiatric wards across France, urging EU institutions to intervene. While the European Commission responded with assurances of commitment to human rights principles, an analysis of their language reveals significant gaps between rhetoric and action.

The Petition: A Stark Picture of Abuse

Philippe Descarpentiers, on behalf of CCDH France, presented a harrowing account of widespread abuses against minors hospitalized in psychiatric facilities. Two major issues emerged from his testimony:

1. Over-Medicalization : Between 2014 and 2021, there has been an alarming surge in psychotropic drug prescriptions for minors. According to a report by the High Council of the Family in March 2023, the use of antidepressants increased by 62%, hypnotics and sedatives by 155%, and psychostimulants like Ritalin saw a fivefold increase between 2008 and 2021. These medications are frequently prescribed without proper authorization, diagnostic clarity, or adherence to regulatory safeguards. Younger children and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately affected, violating multiple articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including Article 3 (right to physical and mental integrity) and Article 21 (non-discrimination).
2. Lack of Legal Recourse : Unlike adults, minors hospitalized in psychiatry lack access to judicial oversight, legal representation, or mechanisms to contest their confinement or treatment. Many endure prolonged isolation or restraint, sometimes lasting months, with no recourse to appeal. This violates Articles 6 (right to liberty and security) and 47 (right to effective remedy) of the Charter.

Descarpentiers concluded with a fervent call for reform, urging the Commission to investigate practices across member states and ensure compliance with international human rights frameworks such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

The Commission’s Response: A Closer Look

Representing DG SANTE, the Commission delivered a response that emphasized its role in complementing national efforts while respecting subsidiarity—the principle that health systems remain primarily under national jurisdiction. Here’s a breakdown of their statement:

• Deinstitutionalization Efforts : The Commission touted initiatives like the Joint Action Implemental and partnerships with the WHO’s QualityRights program to transition away from institutional care toward community-based models.
• Child Protection Systems : Reference was made to the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, which prioritizes integrated child protection systems and early intervention programs.
• Alignment with International Frameworks : The Commission reiterated its support for implementing the CRC and CRPD, emphasizing the need for independent oversight and accountability in psychiatric care.

However, upon closer examination, the Commission’s response revealed subtle evasions:

• Subsidiarity Shield : By invoking Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Commission subtly deflected responsibility onto member states, allowing it to avoid direct confrontation with national policies, even when those policies violate EU charters and conventions.
• Vague Timelines : Despite citing numerous funding programs and projects, the Commission provided no concrete timeline for addressing the specific grievances raised in the petition.
• Focus on Adults Over Children : Much of the Commission’s narrative centered on broader mental health reforms rather than targeted protections for minors—a group explicitly recognized as requiring special safeguards under both the CRC and CRPD.

MEPs Rally Behind the Petitioner

Several Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) echoed concerns raised by the petitioner and pushed back against the Commission’s cautious approach:

• MEP Falca (EPP – Poland) called for judicial review in cases of disagreement between a minor and their parents regarding psychiatric hospitalization. He supported prohibiting unjustified internment and ensuring access to education during hospitalization.
• MEP Lauren (S&D – France) presented damning statistics showing a 79% increase in isolation measures between 2013 and 2020. She criticized the absence of systematic judicial oversight for minors hospitalized in psychiatry and urged reforms ensuring minors receive the same legal protections as adults.
• MEP Szekeres (Hungary) , as a parent, stressed the unique vulnerabilities of children undergoing psychiatric treatment and advocated for continued investigation into abusive practices.
• MEP Zacharia (Greece) proposed creating a binding guide for member states to standardize protections for minors in psychiatric care, aiming to bridge the gap between lofty aspirations and tangible outcomes.

Are Children Truly Protected?

The Commission’s response raises critical questions about whether its actions align with its stated values:

1. Failure to Address Coercive Practices : While the Commission acknowledged the importance of preventing coercive practices, it did not commit to banning forced hospitalizations, isolation, or chemical restraints for minors—a glaring omission given the evidence presented in the petition.
2. Insufficient Judicial Oversight : MEP Lauren highlighted the absence of systematic judicial controls for minors hospitalized in psychiatry. Yet, the Commission failed to outline concrete measures to rectify this imbalance, leaving children vulnerable to arbitrary decisions by parents or institutional directors.
3. Overlooked Data Gaps : The Commission praised various initiatives but ignored the petitioner’s point about inadequate data collection on minors subjected to coercive measures. Without robust monitoring, it is impossible to assess progress or hold member states accountable. 4 Examples of better practices in countries like Poland, Norway, and Romania highlight that progress is possible—and necessary—underlining the inadequacy of France’s current system.

Words Must Become Action

The Commission’s response reflects a delicate balancing act: affirming its commitment to human rights while avoiding overreach into national sovereignty. However, when it comes to protecting some of society’s most vulnerable members—children trapped in abusive psychiatric systems—this cautious approach falls short.

For real change to occur, the Commission must move beyond vague commitments and take decisive action:

• Launch a Europe-wide investigation into coercive practices targeting minors.
• Mandate judicial oversight for all psychiatric hospitalizations of children.
• Ban prolonged isolation and restraint for minors, aligning with CRPD and CRC obligations.
• Invest significantly in deinstitutionalization and community-based alternatives.

As Philippe Descarpentiers from CCDH France poignantly stated, “It is our common responsibility not to accept the unacceptable.” The time has come for the European Commission to translate its promises into meaningful protections—for every child deserves to grow up free from harm, respected in their dignity, and empowered to shape their own future.

Will the Commission rise to the occasion? Only time—and sustained pressure from civil society and MEPs—will tell.