Decryption: The new bill proposed by Olivier Falorni
What is included in the new bill on the “End of Life” proposed by MP Olivier Falorni and registered at the French National Assembly on 6th March 2025?
The bill is based on the original radical text adopted prior to the dissolution
The initiator of the text explains his approach in a presentation of motives: Using the text which the dissolution by the President had made obsolete, i.e. the government bill, as it appeared, successively amended first by the special commission, and then by the National Assembly.
Note also that, firstly the National Assembly is not the same as the one which was in power during the spring of 2024 and also, the work by the commission and the National Assembly had removed most of the safeguards which the government had established in order to demonstrate that the bill was balanced and secure. We are therefore faced with a particularly radical text.
Olivier Falorni moreover asks the question dialectically: “What is meant by “Life” when it means suffering, with no hope of a cure?”. Whilst stating the need for humility and open-mindedness on this delicate subject, whilst presenting his “assisted dying” as “a final resort”, in exceptional circumstances only, in the name of freedom, he advocates, “The right to control one’s own death”. That is the radical solution being promoted when the bill itself is being examined.
Two broad and largely unverifiable “medical” criteria
-
A disease “at an advanced stage” with “threatened life expectancy”
In order to qualify for assisted dying (which is either assisted suicide or euthanasia according to whether or not the patient “is physically capable of performing the procedure), the text specifies that patients must be of adult age, resident in France, be able to express themselves in full consciousness and be suffering from “a serious and incurable disease, which threatens their life expectancy, and in an advanced or terminal phase”. To say that life expectancy is threatened signifies that the disease may cause death.
In its guidelines issued at the request of the government whilst the bill was being debated in the spring of 2024, the High Authority for Health stated: “Prognosis may be defined as the probability that a patient will develop a particular result over a specific time lapse. Uncertainty is inherent in the prognosis. The acceptance of such uncertainty is central to the appropriate use of any information on a prognosis when making a medical decision.” (Life expectancy threatened in the medium term/advanced phase, 12th December 2024).
The bill by the government “dissolved” in the spring of 2024 initially included in the conditions for euthanasia or assisted suicide a “life expectancy threatened in the medium term”. Whereas it was among the “guarantees” tabled by the government, that condition was medically inoperative and was deleted by the National Assembly. The Falorni proposal does away with any idea of a cooling-off period. The only requirement is for a disease which may be fatal and is already in an advanced state. Two rather biased terms which are broadly unverifiable.
-
Psychological (…) suffering (…) “unbearable according to the person”
The radical nature is confirmed by the following criterion: The patient must “exhibit psychological or physiological suffering associated with the disorder, which is either refractory to treatment, or unbearable according to the person when the latter chooses not to receive or to discontinue a treatment.” The so-called “assistance in dying” would not in any way be restricted to patients enduring “refractory suffering”, in other words which medicine is unable to relieve.
Firstly, it could involve exclusively “psychological” suffering. If the patient claims to be enduring unbearable psychological suffering to justify his/her request, who then would be able to evaluate it to give a different opinion? The terminology of the text provides a “password” for assisted suicide.
Furthermore, the patient can simply refuse an analgesic treatment or psychological support and claim to be suffering “unbearably” (physically or morally). Who could then challenge such a self-evaluation? The text is mindful to attach to the word “unbearable” the detail: “according to the person”. As a result, carers will not be able to comment on the suffering, in the assumed logic of self-determination.
That is the other password for assisted suicide or euthanasia. The door would therefore be wide open. The only thing to do is to merely refuse a vital treatment (of whatever kind) or a vital care (such as feeding). Such refusal is unquestionably within the rights of any patient, if he/she is properly informed. By leaving the patient as the only judge of the validity of his/her request, access to assisted suicide or, failing that, to euthanasia becomes extremely easy.
A simple, or even expeditious procedure, at the discretion of a single doctor.
In fact, the procedure is termed “collegial” with a consultation required by a colleague who does not necessarily need to examine the patient, and a medical auxiliary or a nurse on the other hand who knows the patient. Nevertheless, the doctor remains free in his/her decision which is notified within 15 days, euthanasia or assisted suicide can then be administered promptly, if at the patient’s request, the doctor considers that there is no need to comply with the two-day interval specified in principle between the notification and the fatal administration. The latter is supervised by a doctor or a nurse, but it is not mandatory for either to be present at the moment of assisted suicide, once the lethal substance has been provided. The medic must however remain “close enough to be able to intervene in the event of difficulties”.
Contesting is prohibited, opposition is silenced
Only the person who submits the request for assistance in dying may challenge the decision of the doctor. Next of kin have no right of appeal. Moreover, any attempt to obstruct the euthanasia is severely punishable. A one-year prison sentence, is the penalty for “Preventing or attempting to prevent the practice or information on [sic] assistance in dying by any means, including electronically or on line, in particular by the distribution or transmission of allegations or indications of such a nature as to intentionally mislead, on the characteristics or medical consequences of assistance in dying.”
The intended target: Any obstruction to the access to locations which practice assistance in dying and the exercise of moral pressures or other types of “intimidation” aimed at patients seeking information and medics practicing assistance in dying. Any association at least 5 years old, devoted to “people’s rights to access assistance in dying” may take legal action. The text records the proximity of its author with the ADMD (Association for the right to die with dignity) and intends to silence its opponents. It establishes a monopoly and controls the information by the pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide supporters. It remains only for a Ministry of Truth to dictate what can be said or not, what is true or fake.
Limited conscience clause, list of medics acting for the claimed “assistance in dying”, a posteriori checks.
The conscience clause for medics is recognised, admittedly, but not that of establishments which are bound to allow health workers to practice assisted suicide and euthanasia on their premises.
Also, any doctor must be in a position to inform the patient on the law and to direct him/her to a practitioner accepting to conduct the procedure. The universal prevention of suicide, is replaced by a virtually mandatory form of encouragement to suicide: An upheaval of the patient-carer relationship, whereas the families and next of kin are totally excluded from the process.
Chemists involved in the supply of the lethal products have no right to the conscience clause.
A register of professionals accepting to take part will be drawn up. They must declare themselves to a “supervisory and evaluation commission” of the law. Their names will be accessible to doctors only. As in other nations experimenting euthanasia or assisted suicide, the monitoring of the validity of procedures is conducted afterwards. Which has been found to be ineffective.
The examination of this bill and that devoted to palliative care has been announced for the weeks of 12th and 19th May next. That the debate is to start from such a basis can only confirm the state of absolute vigilance which that perspective suggests: France would in one go legalise an easily accessible euthanasia-assisted suicide combination on criteria as broad as they are unverifiable, and in so doing, without any monitoring system being truly possible.
Suivez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux :
