France's Senate may decide not to debate euthanasia bill.

France's Senate should debate the bill and once again reject it.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I reported on June 30 that France's National Assembly voted to pass the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232. 

 

In the article I explained that France's National Assembly has twice passed similar euthanasia bills and each time France's Senate defeated the bills. 

Even if France's Senate defeats the euthanasia bill again, the National Assembly can over-ride the vote and legalize euthanasia.

On May 11, 2026, France's Senate defeated the euthanasia bill by a vote of 151 to 118 and then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the section of the bill that improves access to palliative care.

President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia and they have pressured members of the National Assembly to support it.

France's Senate Social Affairs Committee has proposed to not debate the euthanasia bill. There is logic to this proposal based on the fact that the National Assembly can over-ride the decision of the Senate, nonetheless, the Senate should debate the bill and once again reject it.

From France's Senate Social Affairs Committee - Based on the different perspectives between France's National Assembly the Senate - Ms. BONFANTI-DOSSAT and Mr. MILON proposed on June 30 (google translated):

Pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Procedure, the Senate decides that there is no need to continue the deliberation on the bill, adopted by the National Assembly on second reading, relating to the right to assisted dying (No. 814, 2025-2026).

The Senate proposal continues (google translated):

Noting the political impasse resulting from the Senate's rejection, on two occasions, of the bill relating to the right to assisted dying and the failure of the joint committee, this motion aims to oppose the preliminary question to the bill adopted by the National Assembly on second reading no. 814 (2025-2026).

The parliamentary back-and-forth revealed the extent of the divisions caused by the introduction of a form of assisted dying, both within each chamber and between the chambers.

The commission and the National Assembly have, in fact, defended diametrically opposed conceptions of end-of-life care.

Far from making assisted dying an exceptional measure, the National Assembly has stubbornly defended a particularly broad interpretation, establishing assisted suicide and euthanasia as widely accessible rights, based on criteria whose scope and imprecision pave the way for a certain expansion of the system. The beginnings of this dynamic have already been observed during parliamentary debates: the National Assembly came very close to authorizing recourse to euthanasia even in the absence of any incapacity on the part of the individual to self-administer the substance.

The Senate proposal outlined the attempt to find a compromise and reiterates how the bill passed in the National Assembly is wide in scope and lacks definition. The Senate proposal continued:

The Senate's rejection of the text on two occasions prevented the debate, which the commission nevertheless deemed necessary to initiate with the National Assembly, from flourishing, in order to restrict the scope of eligibility of persons and secure procedural guarantees.

In this context, it is clear that the National Assembly has paid little attention to the work of the commission.

The eligibility criteria remained unchanged. The repeated refusal to regulate the life expectancy of eligible individuals, which alone could have guaranteed that assisted dying would be reserved for genuine end-of-life situations, demonstrates the National Assembly's desire to make this text a law for those who want to die, and not a law for those who are going to die, contrary to the position defended by the committee.

The National Assembly also remained deaf to the committee's concerns regarding the strengthening of procedural safeguards. For example, assessing the free and informed nature of a patient's wishes, which cannot be duly verified by a single physician after a single consultation, would have required systematic psychiatric evaluation. The text submitted to the Senate does not provide for this.

While some specific initiatives from the commission were adopted—regarding the involvement of relatives, securing the system for protected adults, and regulating the locations where lethal substances are administered—the National Assembly remained unmoved by the most fundamental concerns, which the rapporteurs had nevertheless shared during the joint committee meeting. Neither strengthening the collegial nature of the decision-making process, nor the mandatory participation of a mental health professional within the panel, nor even the establishment of genuine mechanisms for ex-ante or in-depth oversight were adopted.

Therefore, the text submitted to the Senate would lead to France having one of the most permissive procedures in the world and, in any case, insufficiently rigorous to guarantee a robust assessment of eligibility criteria.

The rapporteurs can only note the irreconcilable divisions between the committee's vision and that defended by the National Assembly, which render any attempt at reaching a compromise futile at this stage of the procedure. The tabling of this preliminary motion reflects their refusal to endorse the illusion of a parliamentary dialogue whose outcome would be certain if the text were to be put to a final reading in the National Assembly.

It is now up to the Government to fully grasp the extent of this political impasse. While all attempts at reconciliation have failed, the executive branch cannot ignore the clear lack of parliamentary consensus surrounding this reform. This law is not like any other: because it involves some of the most fundamental anthropological, ethical, and societal choices, it cannot thrive in dissension and antagonism.

Faced with a similar situation, the United Kingdom chose to suspend the debate on introducing assisted dying. Wisdom would therefore dictate that the Government follow this example and end this fruitless back-and-forth, rather than using the constitutional means at its disposal to force through such a reform.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee points out that this bill is like no other, thus using constitional means to forcefully legalize euthanasia is simply wrong.

Sebastien Ostertag outlined the extent of France's euthanasia bill, that if passed would: 

• Catholic and otherwise Christian retirement homes and medical institutions will likely shut down since there is no conscience clause for religious institutions.
• Nurses and pharmacists can be forced to participate in euthanasia, since there is no conscience clause for them.
• Those who are poor and suffering may be pressured into death since access to palliative care isn't universal.
• The waiting/reflection period before death is only 48 hours.
• Estimates from France suggest that, based on France's population, 50,000 people could die every year from euthanasia.
• The family won't be able to ask the court to stop the decision to die.
• Proponents of the bill will likely push for further expansions, as in other jurisdictions, to allow children to be euthanized, people with mental illness and criminalizing those who try to dissuade someone from being killed.

Instead of competing with Canada's expansive and undefined killing by lethal poison law, France must examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject the bill. 

Québec legalized euthanasia in 2015 based on "exceptional circumstances". The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.