Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Thomas Mangin reported for Euroactiv on January 21 that:
France’s end-of-life bill has become mired in political deadlock, exposing deep ideological divisions over whether doctors should be allowed to provide patients with the means to end their lives, or assist them in doing so.
The impasse deepened on Wednesday evening, when the French Senate rejected Article 4 of the bill, which sought to define the conditions under which patients could access medical aid in dying. In an unusual alignment, conservatives and socialists voted together, albeit for sharply different reasons.
For senators from the conservative ranks, the version of this article adopted by the National Assembly in May 2025 was seen as too permissive, particularly the provision allowing people suffering from incurable illnesses to obtain, at their request, a lethal substance prescribed by a doctor.
Essentially this means that France's euthanasia bill is dead. Mangin further reported:
Facing the stalemate, Health Minister Stéphanie Rist confirmed that she would not withdraw the bill – a move that would, in effect, bury the issue – and said discussions would continue. However, she expressed regret that future debates would now focus on provisions set out in Article 4, whose substance was rejected in the vote.An article by Hélène de Lauzon that was published by the European Conservative on January 22 provides further insight. de Lauzon reports:
The future of this central article remains uncertain, as it must now return to the National Assembly to be reworked – and adopted – before being sent back to the Senate. In order to reach a compromise, concessions are thus likely from the bill’s most ambitious backers on its most divisive points.
Later that evening, an amendment proposed by Les Républicains (LR) was adopted, completely rewriting Article 2 of the original bill and making it impossible to introduce euthanasia in France. The article now says:
- Everyone has the right to the best possible relief from pain and suffering.
- Everyone is entitled to this right until their death, without any voluntary intervention intended to cause death.
Anne Chain-Larché, Vice-President of the Senate, who initiated this amendment, defended it by stating that she rejected a society in which the administration of a lethal substance could be considered ‘care.’ She said her proposal “directly addresses the central argument used in favour of assisted dying: the fear of suffering without relief. Whereas the proposed law transforms this fear into a justification for a right to die, the amendment offers a strong, enforceable and legally secure guarantee of relief. It demonstrates that freedom and dignity do not imply the possibility of causing death, but the effective assurance that society will not allow anyone to suffer without response.”
Once this key amendment was adopted, the senators proceeded to methodically rewrite a whole set of provisions in the bill. Aware that the text will be returned to the National Assembly for review, the senators added additional safeguards, such as the collective conscience clause requested by religious institutions. The offence of obstruction of euthanasia (which could have been punishable with up to two years in prison and a hefty fine) was dropped from the bill, despite the government’s support.
France needs to seriously consider the experience with euthanasia in Québec and completely reject killing people by poison. Québec legalized euthanasia based on "exceptional circumstances" in 2015. The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.
Previous articles on the French euthanasia debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment