What is the status of discussions on the end of life ?
Legislative debate delayed ?
The promise by the previous government to register resumption of the debates at the French Assemblée Nationale in early February has come into conflict with the budgetary realities. Following the vote of no confidence, the time for appointment and installation of the new government, and especially the need for a budgetary policy is complicating the re-scheduling of the debate.
Nevertheless, the supporters of euthanasia are maintaining a pressure out of all proportion relative to the true national priorities. The proposed bill submitted by Olivier Falorni on 17th September obtained 236 signatures.
During his general policy address, François Bayrou, the new Prime Minister assigned the legislative debate to the initiative of MPs: “The Parliament has certain prerogatives which must be adhered to. I am thinking in particular of its power of initiative which it will not fail to exercise on important subjects for our society, such as the end of life”. In other words, Parliament may examine the Falorni bill during a niche for a parliamentary group or during a dedicated week. The niches last one day. In 2021, during examination of a bill, already submitted by Olivier Falorni, only the first article was able to be adopted.
This assignation to the initiative of Parliament has already caused discontent in the pro-euthanasia group. The president of the Assemblée Nationale, a fervent supporter of administered death, stated that she was disappointed by the lack of commitment by François Bayrou.
Save care, refuse administered death
This week, the Prime Minister’s entourage leaked another path: reconsidering the bill, at the initiative of the government, separating off “palliative care” from “euthanasia and assisted suicide.”
MPs from all sides had pleaded for this split through an article published in September 2023 in L’Express.
The proposal is worthy of merit in that it separates care from administered death. It is not acceptable to make believe that euthanasia is an act of compassion, or is part of care. In the words of François Bayrou reported in the press: palliative care is “A duty of society owed to those confronting this ordeal”. In fact, palliative care and euthanasia or assisted suicide are incompatible because their logics are radically different.
The examples of nations which have legalised such practices show that it is impossible to maintain an ethical and effective whole for patients by associating two diametrically opposed approaches.
In Canada, for example, the frontier between what are considered as acts of care on the one hand, and lethal acts, on the other hand, has gradually evaporated. During the International Symposium organised by Alliance VITA in February 2024, a speaker from Quebec reported that in a hospital where euthanasia is practiced, the expression “When will Madam be having her dose?” means quite simply “when will euthanasia be taking place?”.
The anecdote is quite revealing. Care is properly “An action or set of actions which a person decides or accomplishes for themselves and for others, in order to sustain life, to maintain, restore and promote health”. Maintaining life, it is obvious that euthanasia or assisted suicide are the exact opposite.
For the supporters of euthanasia on the other hand, the separation into two parts would “jeopardise the end of life”, as declared by Yaël Braun-Pivet during her new year address on 23rd January. She also warned: “If we do not examine it soon, we shall be unable to complete it by the end of the present five-year term of office.”
Legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia: a project contrary to human dignity and fraternity
Basically, the project for the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia remains profoundly contrary to human dignity and fraternity.
During the action organised by Alliance VITA at the time of the debate at the Assemblée Nationale on the end-of-life bill, the Professor of ethics of health and member of the Dutch Health Council, Theo Boer, gave a message in the form of a warning:
“The legalisation of euthanasia is not the solution. It triggers a dynamic which will change our very society. Nobody can therefore say that legalising euthanasia is a mere question of individual freedom: it sends a message according to which it is better for certain people to cease to exist. The cynicism of such freedom must not be under-estimated.”
At a time when political instability is threatening the adoption of a budget, at a time when the French people continue to consider health as the top priority, it is the duty of the public authorities to do everything possible to relieve physical pain, to accompany psychic suffering of those at their end of life and their families, to support the handicapped and the sick and to never give up on the dignity of one and all.
