The National Assembly adopted, on Wednesday April 15, at first reading, a series of articles of a controversial bill which aims to prevent the risk of attack. The text, intended to fill the “blind spots » of the law, creates confusion between radicalization and psychological disorders according to mental health experts. In a new press release, they repeat that “radicalization is not a psychiatric disorder” and reiterate their firm opposition to this bill. “ This proposal raises absolute opposition, it mistreats suspects, patients hospitalized in psychiatry and psychiatric professionals at the same time. Communiqué.
“The bill presented to you (…) aims to adapt the law to new terrorist profiles, who are increasingly experiencing online radicalization and psychiatric disorders. Since 2023, of the 43 individuals involved in jihadist attack plans in France, 10 of them had psychiatric disorders, including two of the four perpetrators of fatal attacks.notes Renaissance MP Charles Rodwell, in the introduction to his bill, which will be the subject of a global vote on May 5.
In a joint statement, a collective of twenty-nine organizations of mental health professionals denounces a law which invites confusion:
Could psychiatrists refuse without serious basis the proposed Rodwell law and in particular article 1 which establishes the “injunction for psychiatric examination”? New right granted to the Prefect to order forced hospitalization to allow it to take place, in psychiatric services, in the event of refusal by the suspect of radicalization! Psychiatrists know their limits and do not confuse psychiatric dangerousness which certainly exists, and which it must be remembered that it is rare, and criminological dangerousness which is not within their scope.
“Misconceptions”
Moreover, the concept of dangerousness is vague, including on a legal level.
The balance is difficult to find between respect for individual freedoms and collective security, and psychiatry already plays a role in this area by welcoming, providing care, offering rehabilitation spaces, ensuring long-term follow-up of patients, and deploying itself even in prison environments in crowded structures. Psychiatrists, psychiatric professionals, teams, are concerned with all audiences without exception, including those who have committed offenses or are likely to commit them. It is time to stop circulating false ideas, such as those of psychiatry which would be able to detect a terrorist risk, to prevent a terrorist act, following a simple examination in the office – that is to say in consultation – or in the hospital. There already exist specific and multidisciplinary systems, more extensive, and composed of experienced and volunteer professionals. 2
This proposal raises absolute opposition, it mistreats suspects, patients hospitalized in psychiatry and psychiatric professionals. It is not insignificant to be hospitalized in a psychiatric ward, sometimes under duress, restrained and deprived of certain freedoms.
It is not trivial to add to patients hospitalized in psychiatry, already weakened by their own mental disorders, proximity to potentially radicalized or terrorist individuals, admitted for an evaluation and not to receive care. Especially since the law is not concerned with the future of these people who, when they are identified as sick, would nevertheless remain obliged to leave the territory – there is no longer any question of follow-up for these people.
It is not indifferent to make hospital psychiatrists – any hospital psychiatrist – bear responsibility for the prevention of terrorist acts, a responsibility which is not theirs: they are not competent in this area.
Because how can we work peacefully when we all know that zero risk is a challenge. And that invariably, judicial, media and political attention will not fail to turn towards us in the event of the commission of a serious offense after leaving the establishment, even if it is a long time ago?
This bill is supported only by the Minister of the Interior, let us remember that he is not our responsible Minister and note that we have not heard the Minister of Health.
This bill brings psychiatry closer together with terrorism, which is criminal, and with radicalism, which is ideological. This in a flammable social context where multiple fears are agitated.
In spite of himself, she takes on the psychiatrist, often a hospitalist. It is he who will be forced to examine the individual and to decide, incurring his responsibility, whether he recommends the continuation of the forced stay, restricting freedom, or whether he requests prefectural agreement, for a definitive exit from the establishment.
Although it appears from the votes in the National Assembly that Article 1 is politically divisive, it is not a question of supporting one camp against another.
Let us not lose sight of the complexity of the task of the psychiatrist who performs a balancing act, neither from the right nor from the left, and who does not want to serve as a partisan instrument.
Ladies and gentlemen elected officials, let us devote ourselves to our missions centered on care, there are many of them, and thank you for abandoning the involvement of the psychiatric world in your project!
The continuation of the examination and the solemn vote are planned for Tuesday, May 5, 2026 after questions to the Government.
To find out more:
Find the full press release.
• Report on Mr. Charles Rodwell’s bill and several of his colleagues aimed at strengthening security, administrative detention and preventing the risk of attack (2180), no. 2468, filed on Wednesday February 11, 2026.
• “Extension of psychiatric care without consent for radicalized people: a legislative drift creating confusion between psychiatric illness and radicalization and going against the recommendations of good medical practices of the HAS”, press release of February 10, 2026.
