Report n° 42 – Proposition of End of Life law discussed in National Assembly

Report n° 42 – Proposition of End of Life law discussed in National Assembly

by | March 13, 2015 | End of life, News, Publications

Alliance VITA decrypts the latest legislation

THE EVENT

On Tuesday & Wednesday March 10-11, 2015, the French National Assembly examined and voted on 11 articles of the proposition of law “creating new rights in favor of the ill and of people at the end of their life“. The solemn vote on the whole text takes place on Tuesday March 17, 2015.

Remember that the two MPs reporting, Alain Claeys (Socialist Party, PS) and Jean Leonetti (Populist Movement Union, UMP [now known as Republican]), had developed this text at the request of the President of the Republic. After nearly two years of various consultations, the objective was to fulfill commitment n°21 of his presidential campaign, expressed in January 2012 : “I will propose that any adult person in an advanced or terminal phase of an incurable illness, provoking an insupportable physical or psychological pain that cannot be calmed, may ask, under precise and strict conditions, to benefit from medical assistance to terminate his life with dignity“.

The two main novelties are the creation of a “right to a deep and continuous sedation until death” and henceforth the anticipated constraining directives, which leave the door wide-open toward the increasing use of practices which are essentially euthanasia.

 

THE FIGURE

1068 amendments were deposed regarding this text – proof that important dividing lines were manifest on the proposed measures. Nonetheless, they were presented by the government as work expressing a national consensus. In reality, this consensus doesn’t even exist, because the contested measures go too far for some, and not far enough for others.

 

SUMMARY OF THE DEBATES

a) The general discussion and the announcements of the government

During the first four hours of the parliamentary debate, numerous MPs succeeded each other on the tribune to express their convictions on the end of life. Among the main themes dealt with we can cite : accompanying the patients and the relief of their suffering, criticism on lack of palliative care units, the conflict of values between those who give priority to ethics of autonomy (sacredness of the liberty of choice) and those who uphold the ethics of vulnerability (priority of respecting the dignity of the weakest.), the ambiguity of candidate Hollande’s proposition 21, which is the source of the diverging interpretations on the measures which should be taken, the real risks of veering towards euthanasia or disguised assisted suicides, and the uselessness of a new law, as long as palliative care is not really being put to use everywhere.

In her introductory exposé, Minister Marisol Touraine made several announcements :

– A triennial development plan of palliative care (promised since 2012) will be launched in the next weeks. It will be centered on access to palliative care in residential homes for elderly dependant persons (EHPAD) and at home, on training health personnel in palliative practices and on the elaboration by the High Authority of Health of a common repository for health professionals.

– About anticipated directives, she argued against registering them on the Carte Vitale (National Health Card) and instead proposed the creation of a national automated register, easily consultable by doctors.

– In conclusion, whilst considering that this text constitutes “a balance point”, the minister has opened the door to further modifications, by declaring: “Obviously the debate remains open (.). The next step will be to see how this law is applied and, in the case where an extra step appears necessary, to reflect on the best way to include it.“

 

b) The amendments aiming at legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide

To avoid having these amendments voted in the late evening of Wednesday March 11 by a small minority of members, the government changed the agenda to make sure of a larger number of members in the middle of the afternoon (after the questions to the government). There was a great risk of ending up with a law explicitly introducing euthanasia in France, by way of an amendment dealing with an article on sedation.  The government took the risk of opening “Pandora’s box” on euthanasia, since the Parliament was consulted on measures which, in reality, could be taken without having recourse to the law.

The principal amendment, presented by Socialist Party (PS) MP Jean-Louis Touraine and supported by 121 MPs, aimed to create an “active medical assistance to die” (euphemism employed to avoid pronouncing the word euthanasia, which, as many MPs have underlined, would scare the French). With two more identical amendments, one presented by radical Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg and the other by Ecologist Party MP Véronique Massonneau, a common vote by public scrutiny was requested. Out of 161 voting, 70 members were “In Favor”: 50 of whom were socialist (PS), and 89 were “Against”: 40 socialist votes and 43 UMP votes.

Two other amendments, somewhat different but following the same objective, one from Roger-Gerard Schwartzenberg, and the other from Véronique Massonneau, were rejected by a “sit-stand” vote, that is, without counting numbers as in the public scrutiny.

c) Other significant amendments

– In general, the two reporters and the minister contrived the situation so that almost all of the amendments were refused, whether they were proposed from the right or left wing. They only accepted a few minor adjustments and gave some verbal agreements to better formulate litigious expressions during the consultation with the Senate. But all the propositions made by the opposition to clarify the ambiguities or avoid side-door entries for euthanasia, were rejected.

– Article 1 introduces the basic principle that “all persons have the right to a dignified and peaceful end to life“. In this framework, an amendment by member François de Mazières (UMP) was voted in; allowing the affirmation of the principle of the right to training in palliative care for medical personnel, knowing that implementing this program depends on the government powers. It was a symbolic way of “saying yes to palliative care after having said no to euthanasia”, the member summarized.

– Article 2 concerns halting treatments and conditions of unreasonable therapeutic obstinacy. Not one amendment was accepted among those aimed at clarifying distinctions between care and treatment, or defining the expression “artificial maintenance of life ” more clearly. The definition given by Jean Leonetti – “major and irreversible cerebral lesions, leading to an absence of consciousness of oneself and an absence of relating to others” – will certainly need to be developed, since we are dealing with a major concern for patients at the end of their life, but also for seriously handicapped persons (the example of Vincent Lambert was cited several times).

In the same way, the affirmation by which “artificial food and hydration constitute treatments” continues to pose serious problems, since the reporters have refused any idea of reducing this contestable principle. Since every person can demand a stop to his or her treatments, even if he or she isn’t at life’s end, the door remains open to assisted-suicide requests, and doctors could be required to accept.

– Article 3 constitutes the heart of the law’s proposition, by creating a right to a deep and continued sedation until death. In two of the three cases where this right could be imposed on the doctor (see their definitions under the Decoder n°40 December, 14, 2014), the risks of disguised euthanasia remain high. For more than two hours the opposition members tried to make the reporters clarify the meaning of certain essential expressions, notably :

* in the expression “not to prolong one’s life uselessly” (can one ever affirm that a life is useless ?), they obtained that a better formulation will be researched in the consultation with the Senate ;

* in the expression “short term vital prognostic “, Jean Leonetti affirmed that the term is more precise for professionals, and that it can be measured in days or in weeks, while the expression “in terminal phase” is regarded as vaguer, and can be measured in weeks or in months. This affirmation will likewise merit deeper reflections with professionals dealing with the end of life.

* on the penalization of palliative care in calculating the price of medical acts (T2A), the minister committed herself to reviewing the reimbursement quotations of these acts, whose value is currently esteemed lesser than those in curative cases, such as surgical operations and serious treatments. However, all the other amendments for clarifying the situations or for restricting the risks of euthanasia of cases n°2 or n°3 were rejected, as well as those aiming to introduce a conscience clause. It was the same for reverse amendments which tried surreptitiously to reintroduce forms of exceptions for euthanasia.

– Article 4 concerns the right to pain relief. In the proposition of law, the expression “secondary effect” was deleted, leaving it to be understood that treatments which relieve difficult pain could henceforth have the termination of life as their primary objective. Faced with the members’ request to reintroduce this notion, Jean Leonetti explained that these treatments (using a semantic analysis of the expression, “even if they may have the effect of shortening life”) still remain within the framework of the principle of the so-called double effect.

– Article 4 b was added by the Social Affairs Commission on February 17, so that regional annual reports would examine the development of palliative care throughout the French territory. In complement to this, an amendment from Mme Le Dain (PS) was voted in, in opposition of the reporters and of the government, so that every case of profound and continued sedation would be recorded in a special register held by each establishment concerned.

– Articles 5 to 7 were adopted without any significant modification.

– Article 8 concerns the anticipated directives that have become constraining for the doctor, except in cases of life-threatening emergency or if they “appear manifestly inappropriate”. There again, all the amendments to avoid changing doctors into service operators, only serving to execute the “patient’s orders” were refused. Alain Claeys recalled that respecting a person’s autonomy is at the center of the text, and Jean Leonetti clarified that these directives are binding or constraining, but not enforceable in all circumstances since one could bypass them.

However one important point merits recall. In the case of manifestly inappropriate directives, it was situpulated in the initial text that the doctor can circumvent them by consulting a confrere and by justifying his decision in writing in the medical file. The Social Affairs Commission voted in an amendment by Véronique Massonneau (Green Party) which changes the procedure : from now on the doctor must solicit a collegial opinion, and it is the collegial decision which stands (without specifying who takes part in the decision). This new formulation, passed largely unnoticed, strongly reduces the physician’s power of assesment.

The government passed an amendment aiming to facilitate recording and consulting these directives : the inscription on the National Medical Card (Carte Vitale) is to be dispensed with, to be replaced by the creation of an automatic national register consultable by the doctors. This register, to be created after consulting the CNIL, the French Data Protection Authority, will be facultative.

– Article 9, which concerns the status of the “trusted person”, was completed by an amendment by Véronique Massonneau (Green Party) which authorizes this person to consult the medical file of the patient concerned.

– The last articles 10 & 11 gave rise to a vote on a few amendments on diverse consequences of the text, the principal of which, introduced by Sandrine Hurel (Socialist), charges the Government to submit a report to Parliament every year on the application of the law and on the development of palliative care.

 

THE BEST

A group of MPs strongly committed themselves during the debates on the proposition of law. Members of “Parliament for the Family” (Entente Parlementaire pour la Famille), tried to deflect the most dangerous aspects. Among the most active throughout the two days : Xavier Breton, Nicolas Dhuicq, Philippe Gosselin, Marc Le Fur, Hervé Mariton, François de Mazières, Jean-Frédéric Poisson, Frédéric Reiss.

Four of these members – Breton, Gosselin, Mariton, Poisson – came to support the movement Kill the Pain, not the Person (“Soulager mais pas tuer”) at its gathering on the Esplanade des Invalides on March 10, 2015, a few hours before the start of the parliamentary debate.

THE WORST

Watch out for the trap of the “foot in the door”, as we are faced with the ambivalence of numerous majority leaders. These people say they seek common consensus, but they are only dreaming of the next step towards a legalization of euthanasia, pure and simple in our country.

The following words of these last days are eloquent :

– Prime-Minister Manuel Valls asks that Parliament “could bypass differences and agree on the most important points”, but lets it be understood “it’s without any doubt a step”, reminding us that he himself tabled a motion on the legalization of euthanasia in 2009.

– Marisol Touraine, Health Minister, calls MPs not to “upset the French people”, but at the same time affirms “it consists in seeing how this law is applied and, if an additional step is needed, to reflect on the best way to put it into action”, assuring us that “the government will support this reflection”.

– Bruno Le Roux, president of the Socialist Party in Parliament, wishes “that we have a serene, peaceful debate, and that at the end of it we’ll have made a step further, a position of compromise which doesn’t exclude any development“.

 

FOR FURTHER READING

Press Release: Kill the pain, not the patient, March 11, 2015

– Decoder n°40, December 19, 2014, decrypting the Claeys-Leonetti report and the proposition of law in appendix.

– Recent Editorials in the press:

* Tugdual Derville “Proposition de loi sur la fin de vie : vers la sédation pour tous ?”,  Figaro Vox, 9th  March 2015

* 17 professeurs de médecine “La médecine est sous la menace d’un danger d’euthanasie”, Le Monde,      9th March 2015

* 175 médecins “La proposition de loi sur la fin de vie risque de renforcer l’isolement des patients”: Le Figaro 9th March 2015

* 5 représentants des grandes religions “L’interdit de tuer doit être préservé”, le Monde, 9th March 2015

* Cyrille et Magali Jeanteur : “Avec cette nouvelle loi, Cyrille ne serait pas là”, Le Figaro, 10th March 2015

* Dr Sylvain Pourchet “Le droit à la sédation en fin de vie est un écran de fumée”, Le Figaro 10th March 2015

Rejection of amendments in favor of euthanasia – maintaining vigilance

by | March 11, 2015 | Press Releases

“Kill the pain, not the patient” (’Soulager mais pas tuer’) welcomes the rejection of amendments clearly designed to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, and which were defended by part of the presidential majority. The movement “Kill the pain, not the patient” maintains its vigilance.

The mobile given by Health Minister Marisol Touraine reveals the ambiguity of the government’s position : “Don’t put pressure on the French people”. But over and above all, the French people must not let themselves be soothed into inaction by the text under debate. The “Kill the pain, not the patient” movement has already proved that the text is useless and dangerous.

“Kill the pain, not the patient” remains on the constant look-out against certain forms of euthanasia hidden behind the expression, “deep and continuous sedation until death”. The sedation in euthanasia is all the more pernicious if it is hidden, and thus deprives care-givers of their conscience clause. The movement therefore demands that killing be prohibited and thus clearly reaffirmed by maintaining the principle of the double effect act : the intention must be to relieve pain and never that of provoking death. The French people must be protected from protocols putting an end to life, where sedation accompanied a lack of hydration would cause the patient’s death.

In function of the follow-up of debates, there may, or may not, be a call given for a national demonstration on Sunday April 12, 2015. This mobilization of supporters was pre-announced to 600 people gathered yesterday, Tuesday March 10, with specialists and witnesses, near the French Parliament.

Proposition of law on the End of Life: towards sedation for all?

by | March 10, 2015 | Euthanasia and Suicide, End of life, Laws, surveys, protagonists, News, Palliative care, Publications

By Tugdual Derville

Tugdual Derville is founder of A Bras Ouverts (With Open Arms), and author of “La bataille de l’euthanasie” (The Euthanasia Battle) (Salvator). He is the chief delegate of Alliance VITA and spokesman of the Kill the Pain, not the Patient group.

An expression has emerged in the End of Life debate : dying badly. Does this reflect a huge abyss in our health system, or does it express a growing anxiety before death, due to solitude and isolation ? The French National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) underlines the misapplication of the June 9, 1999 law which is supposed to “guarantee the right to access to palliative care. This remains the forgotten element in our health care system.

“Both”, is the answer of the CCNE. Its’ report dated October 23, 2014 denounces “a scandalous situation over the past 15 years : the lack of access to rights acknowledged by the law, the abandoning of an immense majority of persons at the end of their life, and an unbearable end to life for a very large majority of our co-citizens”. A crushing criticism, when one thinks of the great progress medicine has made against pain – the use of morphine, for example – and the deployment of palliative care for thirty years. But precisely the CCNE underlines the misapplication of the June 9, 1999 law which was meant to “guarantee the right to access palliative care”. Palliative care is still the worst example of our health system.

And yet, on July 17, 2012, the President of the Republic had acknowledged that palliative care was very insufficient, and committed himself to “make up for this delay”. Two and a half years later nothing has been done. We are still waiting for the several-year plan for developing palliative care, which broke down in 2012. The Court of Accounts, whose February 11 report was entitled, “Palliative Care : a most incomplete commitment”, denounces regional disparities and abandoned objectives, notably regarding out-patients, and looking after the elderly in retirement homes.

Interviewed on Channel Europe1 on March 9, 2015, a 90-year-old lady who plans to commit suicide in Switzerland when she becomes dependent, admits “my children make a sad face”, even while complaining straight afterwards that “the younger generations no longer feel responsible for their elders”.

Rather than taking up this challenge with full commitment, struggling against the isolation of the elderly and addressing their feeling of abandonment, the government issues a new law. The text, debated since March 10, starts with a bold promise : “All persons have a right to a dignified and peaceful end of life.” Then, all of a sudden, comes a new “right to have a deep and continuous sedation that lasts until death“. Care-givers will be surprised at the manner in which the exercise of this new “right” is detailed. The formulas that are used encourage and maintain confusion. Is it about helping a dying person sleep, or putting someone to sleep to make him die ?

On March 6, the National Academy of Medicine brought up “the wrongful, abusive or tendentious (misleading) interpretation of the term sedation” which the ambiguity of the proposed text encourages. For them, “terminal sedation” comes down to “active euthanasia”, or assisted suicide. It is contrary to the physician’s oath of office. It is surely a new protocol for euthanasia, which appears, hidden, with the sedation associated with the stopping of hydration. Death is guaranteed in a few days. The label “end of life”, which is supposed to help the patient receive palliative care, is turned into ”stopping life”. Quite simply the word “euthanasia”, which might provoke division, is thus avoided. And thus doctors will have been deprived of the right to use any kind of conscience clause.

Putting patients to sleep and putting opinions to sleep amount to the same political logic : an easy way to expedite a complex problem, which can neither be sorted using new end-of-life protocols nor by opinion polls.

The thorough inquiry of the Ethic Reflection Space in Picardie that ended in February 2014 showed this. Out of 1523 transcriptions collected about ending life at home, the subject of “helping to die”, came up only marginally (93 transcriptions), and is seen essentially either as a temptation (81) or as a fear (8); and in only 3 cases as an attraction.

In the end, it is a false choice which is imposed on parliament members – either on one hand, a new but useless law about the end of life, dangerous and already immoral, abusively presented as a consensus; and on the other hand the one-upmanship by presidential majority members to amend it towards being explicitly pro-euthanasia. We have every reason to launch a call-to-action.

Abortion: VITA denounces a serious regression for women

by | January 22, 2015 | Abortion, Maternity, Press Releases

Abortion and the law Equality between women and men:

Alliance VITA denounces a serious regression for women: the denial of the reality of abortion.

The provisions relating to abortion, which have just been adopted by the deputies in the Project “Equality between Women and Men” aim, on the one hand at eliminating from the law the idea of ‘a situation of distress’ for abortion, and on the other hand to penalize the impediments to information on abortion in the facilities destined for this purpose. Besides the symbolic change which characterizes the elimination of the word ‘distress’ from the law for an act which threatens the life of a human being, Alliance VITA denounces the deterioration of the quality of information given to women often confronted with a painful dilemma. Alliance VITA calls for a growing awareness that this constitutes an absolute health and social scandal.

These measures, introduced by an amendment, were not examined by the State Council, nor have they been the object of any impact study by the Government, although they affect the intimate life of women and couples.

For Alliance VITA, the elimination of the words “situation of distress” denies the reality of what women confronted with unexpected pregnancies experience: these women find themselves all too often confronted with a one-way “choice”, by lack of impartial and exhaustive information and of a real abortion prevention policy for those who desire to pursue their pregnancy and be supported in their decision.

For Caroline Roux, Alliance Vita’s General Secretary, who coordinates the help line SOS baby, and all questions related to maternity: “How can we believe that it suffices to eliminate a word from the text to make the reality that it represents disappear? Women are aware of the fact that it is the life of a human being that is at stake. This is why it is often a painful dilemma. To deny the distress is to yet again relieve society of its responsibilities: public authorities have given up the idea of having a real policy to prevent abortion, in cases of unplanned or difficult pregnancies. Men in turn are then relieved of their responsibilities. Many women have told us that they would have been ready to pursue their pregnancy if they had felt supported by their companion. For the younger ones, it is the parents’ support which is decisive. What we are particularly concerned about is the social and economic context. So many women worry about their jobs or their future. This question is so meaningful that the Defender of Rights has launched a campaign to focus on the rights of pregnant women and on the obligation of non-discrimination for hiring them and throughout their career. The measures concerning abortion are all the more shocking in a text that pretends to promote equality between men and women.”

According to Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s General Delegate: “A policy change is urgent to support the numerous women who want to avoid abortion: to provide active assistance once the pregnancy is announced. The enormous surprise revealed by the National Institute of Demographic Studies is that 72% of women having recourse to abortion were on birth control when they became pregnant. What is lacking is listening-support and information. It is a paradox to see the government threaten those who give out little-known information to women, when we know that since the Aubry law in 2001, they no longer receive details about public aid which would allow them to pursue their pregnancy. It is to compensate for this deficiency that Alliance Vita, without any public subvention, publishes and distributes a guidebook that lists the different kinds of assistance for pregnant women which is very much appreciated by the social workers. Utterly preposterous!”

Alliance VITA requests that be introduced in the law a measure that would guarantee balanced information concerning the rights, the assistance and the administrative procedures for pregnant women, alone or as a couple, as well as a description of their social protection. This would contribute to resolving many personal dramas, by presenting women alternatives other than abortion.

Analytical note on the National Assembly’s resolution aimed at reaffirming the fundamental right to abortion in France and Europe

by | December 2, 2014 | Abortion, News, Publications

It is urgent to reinforce a woman’s right to information before having recourse to abortion.

On November 26, 2014, the French National Assembly voted the proposition for the resolution aiming to reaffirm the fundamental right to abortion in France and in Europe. Beyond the declarations of principle, this debate is an opportunity to re-consider the reality of abortion in our country and elsewhere. It should take into account the necessity of enforcing prevention and information campaigns for an action-plan regarding abortion.

1 – The current situation

– In 2012, 219,200 abortions were recorded in France. And the first statistics revealed for 2013, announce 10,000 additional ones as compared to the preceding year. With a rate of 14.9 abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age, France is situated in the high average in Europe. The highest rate is seen in women aged 20 to 24, where there are 27 abortions per 1000 in metropolitan France, and 50 abortions per 1000 in the overseas departments (DOM). According to the National Institute of Demographic Studies, almost 40% of women have had recourse to an abortion at one time during their life.

– Surprisingly, the rate of contraceptive use in France is among the highest in the world. According to the 2010 Health Barometer, 90.2 % of sexually active French women aged from 5 to 49 years old attest to using a method of contraception, including the youth (91.2% of the 15-19 year olds, 92.9 % of the 20-24 year olds).

– This « French contraceptive paradox » is confirmed by the February 2010 report from the General Inspection of Social Affairs (IGAS). It reveals that 72% of women who have recourse to abortion were using birth control when they discovered their pregnancy [1], and concluded that « total mastery of fecundity is a delusion.”

 

Nevertheless, although the public authorities recognize that the growing number of abortions is unsatisfactory, the solutions they put forward only aim at reinforcing contraception, seeking for new abortion prescribing doctors, and to improve the reimbursement of abortion. At least, these have been the means taken for the past few years.    

 

However, for women the abortion is not an insignificant act:

 

  • For the Chief Health Authorities, quoted in the report made by the IGAS on prevention of unplanned pregnancies (2010): “ Abortion often remains a difficult event to experience from the psychological perspective. This dimension needs to be objectively and scientifically clarified.” And yet, since this report, no public research study has been carried out.
  • According to a March 2013 poll carried out by Opinion Way for Nordic Pharma, 85% of women declare having experienced suffering during abortion, with 82% of those declaring moral pain suffering as well, and 67% of them declaring physical pain. This confirms a preceding poll carried out by the French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) in 2010 concerning women and abortion : 83% of women thought that the abortion leaves psychological traces that are difficult to surmount.
  • The conclusion report of the General Inspection of Social Affairs (IGAS) on the evaluation of the policies to prevent non-desired pregnancies and deal with abortion seems to surrender to inevitability: “There will always be situations of uncertainty or emotional break-up which can bring into question a pregnancy that was possibly desired at a particular moment.”

Women, more than ever, need to be listened to and accompanied, and not have the society clear itself of its responsibility and deny the difficulty of an act that men, themselves, are not submitted to.

 

Real progress would be to develop prevention policies against pressure from society, especially on the masculine side whereby women are pressured towards “voluntary” abortion as we have a proactive policy against violence towards women.

 

2 – The selective abortion scandal should incite us to abstain from promoting abortion in Europe and throughout the world

The European Parliament examined the scandal of abortions selected according to their sex, by the vote on the resolution “The ‘Genericide’: missing women?” on October 8, 2013 52012/2273 INI)[2]. This ‘genericide’ describes the fact of deliberately killing a person for the unique reason of belonging to a certain sex. In fact, in certain countries – such as China and India, but also certain regions of the Balkans and Caucasus-, abortions of female fetuses are widespread.

 

According to the reasons cited in the preceding text ‘ we estimate that by 1990 already, more than one hundred million women were demographically ‘absent’ from the world population due to ‘genericide’; and according to recent estimates, these figures have increased to almost two hundred million women absent from the world population”. The same text gives the following explanation: “despite recent legislation against practicing sex selections, girls are the object, in a disproportionate manner, of single-minded sex discrimination, which often goes as far as striking fetuses identified as feminine, which are objects of abortions, being abandoned or assassinated, the unique reason being that they are feminine fetuses.”

3 – A solid proposition to improve information given to women

 

Women need access to complete and impartial information. Yet, the quality of information has deteriorated in the past decade.

Is it acceptable that one recommends a “fundamental right to abortion” and while simultaneously denying women the power – and the right – to express that freedom by being fully informed?

 

Nevertheless, the tendency in the legislation is heading in the opposite direction: the July 4, 2001 law eliminated the information leaflet previously given to persons who came to be informed about the possibility of an abortion. This guide presented the different aid and protection afforded to pregnant women. At the same time, no information concerning these rights and aid figure on the Health Ministry’s website in the space dedicated to abortion.

 

Thus it is urgent to reintroduce into this law, a measure guaranteeing balanced information regarding rights, aid, and administrative steps to be taken for pregnant women, whether alone or as a couple, as well as describing their social protection. [3].

This could help resolve a certain number of personal tragedies, offering women alternative solutions to abortion, which should not be viewed as inevitable.    

 

Conclusion

Our country is in need of a broad debate on the policies regarding abortion. But this debate should be profound and serene, non-biased, and take into account women’s current situation. Because we are dealing with women’s dignity and their suffering.

We urgently need to implement real prevention policies of abortion and reinforce women’s right to information before a decision to have recourse to abortion.

 

[1] Etude Cocon cité dans le rapport de l’IGAS sur la pratique de l’IVG et l’évaluation des politiques de prévention des grossesses non désirées -2010.

[2] Texte disponible sur le site  du parlement européen.

[3] Le deuxième paragraphe de l’article L2212-3 du Code de la santé publique pourrait être complété par la disposition suivante : « ainsi que la présentation des droits et des aides existant pour les femmes enceintes ».