“Georgian Dream” is creating a mental health registry, which specialists say will have catastrophic consequences for the mental health system.
The initiator of the registry is the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which raises many questions. According to the legislative amendments proposed, controversial terms are also being introduced, such as “legally incapacitated person.”
Why is the creation of this registry dangerous? Batumelebi spoke about this with Maya Tsiramua, psychologist and clinical supervisor.
why is the involvement of law enforcement agencies in creating this registry dangerous, and what might be the real purpose behind it?
One of the signs that makes me suspect that the outcomes of this law will be catastrophic from a human rights perspective and will push the mental health sector toward collapse is precisely the fact that the initiator is the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which in reality has nothing to do with mental health.
All laws adopted recently are cleverly packaged. In this case as well, a deceptive term is used “public safety.” From a marketing standpoint, this is calculated very accurately, because safety is one of the most basic needs in society.
But everyone must understand that this bait word has nothing to do with actual safety.
A citizen may have a legitimate concern when calling a taxi or traveling from one city to another knowing who is behind the wheel, or who is carrying a weapon. These issues can be regulated, but not by tying them to mental health.
It is stigmatizing to link public safety to a person’s mental health. This implies that people with mental health problems are dangerous to society.
In reality, it is society that is dangerous for these people. Everyone should understand this. Moreover, the new laws I am observing allow for completely free interpretation.
Does the law specify particular diagnoses, or does it refer to mental disorders in general?
Mental disorders are mentioned. I do not recall the wording verbatim, but nowhere is it clarified which categories are included. If we look at basic statistics, common mental health problems affect every third person in Georgia at least once in their lifetime—whether anxiety disorders, depression, post-traumatic conditions, adjustment disorders, and so on.
If Georgia’s population is about 3.5 million, that means roughly one-third would fall into this database. That is catastrophic. Managing such a massive database is a problem in itself. Why should extremely sensitive personal data about nearly half the population be stored in a database, especially when the law does not specify how long this information will be kept?
Years may pass, a person may no longer need therapy and may be completely free of any condition, yet they would still remain in this database. All signs indicate that such databases are created for dictatorial regimes.
I personally witnessed the case of Nazi Shamanauri and how the Soviet regime used mental health issues against her. That is the direction in which this is heading.
Do you feel that this registry is being created not to care for citizens, but for repressive control?
Absolutely it is a repressive mechanism. If this were about care, no database would be needed at all.
Let’s say a person wants to obtain a firearm permit. They may have no mental health problems whatsoever, but may have personality traits, poor self-regulation, high impulsivity, or a value system and level of moral development that do not meet safety criteria.
This means that safety depends on civic responsibility, morality, and self-regulation.
What creates danger in society is not mental illness, but a lack of civic responsibility, values, and moral standards and these cannot be measured by a registry.
Take driving as another example. What kind of driver causes accidents? There are specific skills involved, such as perception and reaction speed, that are genuine risk factors. Personally, I do not drive because I lack spatial awareness. This has nothing to do with cognition or mental health it is simply a matter of responsibility.
Someone may have difficulty dividing attention, but that is not a mental health issue. A lack of certain skills can pose a much greater risk than a driver who once, according to their medical history, experienced depression or anxiety. That does not mean they are incapable of driving.
Today, poorly laid asphalt or badly constructed buildings pose far greater risks than a person diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.
Society faces a much greater threat from so-called “titushki” groups roaming the streets, possibly carrying weapons illegally than from people with mental health conditions.
You mentioned a troubling precedent earlier.
Yes. We had a very disturbing case a few months ago when a detained person’s medical form included the note “emotional lability,” and the prosecutor decided that this person should undergo a psychiatric evaluation. This reflects, on the one hand, ignorance, and on the other, a deeply discriminatory attitude.
This law is something one might imagine only in a nightmare or an absurd dream, and people still do not fully realize its implications.
What can you say about the discriminatory terminology used in the law?
They are introducing the term “legally incapacitated.” This completely strips a person of the ability to defend themselves.
If this law is adopted, the entire mental health sector both service users and providers will collapse. First and foremost, people will simply avoid seeking help to stay off this “black list.”
Service utilization will decline. People already struggle to visit psychiatrists due to stigma and instead go to neurologists, which does not solve their real problems. We have seen many cases where conditions worsened as a result.
We have poured enormous effort into reducing stigma, increasing awareness, helping people identify symptoms, and understand where to seek help. This required tremendous work and specialists were not even consulted during the development of this registry.
Does this mean that years of work will be undone by this law?
Absolutely. And do you know what that means?
People with substance use disorders who experience withdrawal symptoms will avoid seeing narcologists or addiction specialists for fear of ending up on the “black list.” This will ultimately increase mortality rates.
People suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder or panic disorder will stop seeking medication to avoid being entered into the registry, which will worsen their condition.
Depression is a condition where it already takes enormous effort to motivate a person to seek help. This law will further discourage them, increasing suicide risk in the country. Mortality rates will rise significantly because people will avoid treatment to stay out of the registry and avoid becoming instruments in the hands of the state.
In recent years, Georgia has made significant progress many effective programs have been developed, and multidisciplinary teams work comprehensively with people facing addiction. After this law, people will simply stop going to doctors.
There are parallels with the law Russia plans to implement in 2026, where a similar registry is being created. Do you think “Georgian Dream” is following the Russian model and distancing itself from Western standards?
It is identical. If you place the two laws side by side, even the terminology matches. Fortunately, Georgia has highly qualified specialists who use modern, politically correct approaches. No one uses the term “drug addiction” anymore—it has been abandoned in professional practice. Russia still uses it.
Is that term actually written into the draft law?
Yes, the term “drug addiction” is explicitly used.
There is no doubt that these databases are being created around the same time in both countries. That is why I say every citizen regardless of political affiliation must understand this threat. This is the camel that will kneel at everyone’s door, inevitably.
We have 150 members of parliament. Statistically, one-third of people experience mental health issues at least once in their lives. That means MPs themselves would be included in this database.
Their children would be included as well children who may have experienced anxiety or behavioral disorders during adolescence. This means their children, too, are condemned to be part of this system. And since we are returning to Soviet practices, you must accept that your child’s sensitive data will exist somewhere and may be used against them at any time.
You have experience working in prisons. How does that relate to this issue?
When we were establishing psychosocial services in prisons, psychologists and psychiatrists worked extensively on how records should be kept, who could access them, and how sensitive information might be misused by the regime or security services.
Even a small note “fear of the dark” can indicate a psychological condition. A regime could use such a note as a tool of torture.
So how can anyone justify placing people’s diagnoses into a database accessible to law enforcement? It is unimaginable. Doing this would be catastrophic.
Do specialists still have any leverage to influence this process and prevent the law from being applied in this form?
This ultimately comes down to civic responsibility. Specialists now face a dilemma: stand on the side of the individual, or comply with this draconian, anti-human law. I am not confident that everyone will choose the former.
As always, there will be people in this country who cooperate with autocratic and dictatorial regimes and even help strengthen them.
Society must recognize this problem and demand the removal of discriminatory provisions from this law provisions that will plunge the mental health system into collapse, especially given how freely the law allows for interpretation.