The Polish Federation of Life defence Movements (PFROŻ) made an appeal to president Andrzej Duda to refuse to sign the amendment of the bill on patient rights and to mention it to the Constitutional Court to examine compliance with the Constitution. The novel, adopted by the Sejm on 25 June 2025 and unchanged by the Senate, allows minors after the age of 13 to access psychiatric wellness services without the cognition and consent of parents or legal guardians.
Although specialised support for children and young people is necessary, the task contains a number of legal and constitutional shortcomings. The main allegations concern violations of parental rights — interference in decisions to treat a kid requires, according to the Constitution, a statutory basis and a court ruling, which the draft does not provide. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the provisions which mention to the Minister's regulation to find the scope of benefits without the guardian's consent violates the regulation of law. There is besides no judicial control over the decision to inform caregivers, and the ‘good patient’ criterion leaves a large deal of freedom to arbitrary medical personnel.
The Federation besides notes a breach of the rule of equality – the work to present an identity paper favours persons with proof or passport, which may in practice restrict access to benefits for many minors. In addition, the rationality of introducing different age limits (13 and 16 years) without clear reasons raises doubts.
According to FPRAZ, the proposed changes may origin household conflicts, undermine children's trust in their parents, alienate them from household ties and deepen their loneliness, which is contrary to the children's declared welfare in the justification of the project.
In her appeal, PEROŻ called on the president to usage the constitutional right to mention the task to the Constitutional Court and to refuse to sign the Act as it stands, stressing the importance of issues and the hazard of violating citizens' rights.
The authors of the appeal represent various pro-life and social organizations, including the Foundation 1 of Us, the Foundation of tiny Feet, the Foundation for Full Life, the Association for the aid of the Closer of Brother Krystyn and the Club of Friends of Human Life – HLI Polska.
The article was based on the information contained in the appeal of PFROŻ and the text on the portal at Polityka.pl concerning the amendment of the bill on patient rights.
Full content of the appeal:
Dear Mr President, The Polish Federation of the Movements of defence of Life (hereinafter PEROŻ) adopted with concern the consequence of the work on the bill on the amendment of the Patient Rights Act and the Act on the Doctor and Dentist Competition, passed by the Sejm on 25 June 2025. This project, unchanged, was adopted by the legislature and handed over to the President.
According to the authors of the Act, its intent is to let minors after they are 13 years of age, to benefit without the cognition and consent of parents or legal guardians, from wellness benefits in the field of psychiatric care, with additional reservations provided for in the novel.
The project's subject substance is reported. The authors of the task are right that children and young people should be surrounded by the care of specialists – erstwhile justified – and cannot be left to themselves. Certainly, the introduction of mechanisms enabling young people to benefit from professional assistance deserves analysis. However, this must not be an apparent act, unthought-out action and affecting another goods, especially those protected by the Constitution.
In the opinion of FROZ, this task is subject to many drawbacks. The legal analyses available to us indicate that the content of the proposals for amendments violates the constitutional rule of proportionality, in peculiar as regards the protection of parents' rights.
PEROŻ raises crucial constitutional objections to the proposed regulations, arguing that:
1. Limiting parental rights: The fresh rules interfere with constitutionally protected parental authority, including decisions on the treatment of the kid (Article 48(1) and (2) of the Constitution). Under the law, specified restrictions can only be imposed on the basis of a bill and a final judgement of a court, which the draft fails to fulfil.
2. ambiguity: The scope of the benefits which may be provided without the consent of the guardian is not explicitly specified in the Act, but refers to the Minister's order. Consequently, restrictions on constitutional rights are formulated in the act of constitutional rank, which is contrary to Article 48(2) of the Constitution.
3. deficiency of judicial review and arbitrariness of decisions: The task grants the individual providing the benefit the right to decide whether to inform the guardian or court, only with the exception of the ‘good patient’ criterion, without any external control of that decision.
4. Violation of the rule of equality (Article 32 of the Constitution): The introduction of an work to present an identity paper (ID, passport) and to supply a PESEL number favours minors who have it. In practice, many minors neglect to meet these requirements, which may lead to discrimination and restrictions on access to benefits.
5. Doubts as to the justification of the age limit: The task introduces different age limits (13 and 16) without clear and rational justification, which undermines the rule of equal treatment. The Constitutional Court considers age differentiation to be acceptable only in exceptional situations and not, as in this case, in rules on universal benefits.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE FRENCH:
The proposed government violates the constitutional principles of protecting parental rights, equality before the law and correct legislation. In particular, the posting of key decisions to the level of the regulation, the deficiency of judicial review of decisions and the arbitraryity of criteria for access to benefits by minors are criticised. FROZE advocates the withdrawal of the task in its current form.
The Polish Federation of Life defence Movements asks the president to familiarise himself with this task and to refuse to sign it and to request the Constitutional Court to examine its compliance with the Constitution. We have reason to believe that the draft infringes the Constitution in a material way, to the detriment of protecting citizens' rights. This law can origin household conflicts, undermine trust in parents, alienate minors from household ties and deepen their loneliness, thereby making it compatible with the welfare of children declared in the justification of the bill.
We are aware that this constitutional right can only be exercised by the president in exceptional, peculiarly justified cases. However, we are convinced that the importance of the subject substance covered by the task deserves the application of the President's initiative to the Constitutional Court.
We hope that our position will be divided by the president and the Constitutional Court. erstwhile we ask for the application, we pay our respects.
For the Polish Federation of Life defence Movements
• Jakub Baltroszewicz, president – Foundation 1 of Us
• Fr Tomasz Kancelarczyk, Vice president – tiny Feet Foundation
• Grzegorz Nienartowicz, Vice president – Foundation for Full Life
• Magdalena Bartoszewicz – Brother Krystyn's Association of Assistance to the Closer
• Maria Gondek – Life Wave Foundation
• Ewa Kowalewska – Club of Friends of Human Life – HLI Poland
• Rafał Szczypta – Knights of Columbus
