France's euthanasia law is disturbing.

Dr. Mark Komrad

The following comments were provided by Dr. Mark Komrad, M.D., DFAPA, ACP, Faculty of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins, University of Maryland, Tulane, and LSU

You may have heard that France’s National Assembly overrode their Senate’s objection to a proposed euthanasia law, and legalized it. A review by the French constitutional court has since upheld it, with a some of important clarifications, a couple of which are disturbing:

1. Like Canada and Benelux countries, the law allows both US style assisted suicide (oral prescription) AND euthanasia (IV lethal injection by doctor). [In all jurisdictions that permit both, typical 99%+ of patients choose euthanasia, to outsource the suicide to the physician].
2. Pharmacists retain the right to conscientious objection, and can refuse to dispense lethal meds, even when ordered.
3. Although religious institutions (Hospice’s, nursing homes) can refuse to provide the killing services, that is only if there is a nearby facility willing to provide the euthanasia. If not, then the right of religious-based objection is overridden, and the religious facility then MUST provide euthanasia to qualified patients! This resembles what we’re seeing in Canada, where some religious institutions’ conscientious objections have been overwritten on this issue.
4. Patients who lack capacity due to dementia, low IQ, etc. and have legal guardians, can be euthanized by doctors’ decision. Though the physician, who must consult the legal guardian those guardians DO NOT HAVE VETO POWER over the doctor’s decision, which is final. This is actually one of the most severe developments in the international spread of euthanasia laws.*

We are horrified by the implementation of this law in France and are gravely concerned with the countless French citizens who are now at risk of deadly harm, particularly people with disabilities.

Legalization of Euthanasia in France: conscientious objection and the impartiality of judges

By Odile Marcotte
Retired Professor Department of Computer Science, UQAM and a Euthanasia Prevention Coalition board member.

Previous article: France legalized euthanasia. What's next (Link).

Odile Marcotte

After the National Assembly of France adopted the law on “aid in dying,” (Article Link) five people or groups asked the Constitutional Council (the French equivalent of the Supreme Court of Canada) to state whether this law was constitutional.

In its decision published on August 14, 2026, the Constitutional Council did not reject the law or any part of it but asked for three changes (Link to the article in the Le Point magazine) (Link to the decision). 

The first concerned adults under guardianship, that is, those subject to a guardianship arrangement, who, under the initial version of the law, could request and obtain assisted dying without the guardian being consulted. The Council holds that the guardian must be consulted in such cases (see paragraph 121 of the decision). 

It also holds that pharmacists have the right to conscientious objection, that is, the right to refuse to prepare and provide the lethal substances used in the assisted dying procedure (see paragraph 166). 

Finally, the Council holds that institutions themselves (and not just individuals) have the right to refuse to perform assisted suicide or euthanasia if these practices conflict with their mission or purpose (see paragraph 188). An institution’s refusal, however, “can only be invoked if other institutions are able to meet local needs,” which greatly restricts the institutions’ freedom of conscience.

From our point of view this last point is especially interesting, since certain Canadian provinces (notably Quebec) require every hospice to include euthanasia in its “range of care.” The Maison Saint-Raphaël, for example, which is located near several Montreal hospitals, was compelled to do so. The intolerance displayed by the drafters of the first version of the French law, which did not recognize any freedom of conscience for institutions, has been sharply criticized by several authors, who call for genuine pluralism in the field of end-of-life care (Link to an article on conscience rights). 

Quebec and Canada are in great need of this pluralism! Furthermore, before the Constitutional Council issued its ruling, Ms. Nazila Ghanea, a professor at the University of Oxford and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, reminded the French government and the Constitutional Council of their obligation to respect the freedom of conscience of healthcare professionals and institutions providing end-of-life care (Link to article). Of course Ms. Ghanea could make a similar statement regarding the Canadian situation if someone brought to her attention the legislation of the federal and provincial governments of Canada, particularly the burden on Quebec hospices to provide euthanasia.

Another important issue is the impartiality of the judges or “wise men,” as members of the Constitutional Council are called. In fact, some members of the Council had already expressed their support for the legalization of euthanasia in one way or another, and the Council received recusal requests targeting two of its members. These requests were rejected by the Council for reasons that were heavily criticized by some legal experts (Article on impartiality). The issue of the impartiality of judges also arises in Canada.

France's Constitutional Court approves euthanasia law, even for incompetent people.

France's euthanasia law allows doctors to kill incompetent people.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's Constitutional Court has essentially accepted the euthanasia bill as passed by France's National Assembly with the priviso that the Constitutional Court improved conscience rights. 

On July 15, 2026; France's National Assembly passed a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 291 to 241. This was the final vote in the National Assembly and it over rides the previous votes rejecting the euthanasia bill in France's Senate.

The battle was not over. Agence France-Presse reported on July 15 that:

The President of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced Tuesday that he would refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, to take into account the oppositions that persist, especially on the right.

Sebastien Ostertag sent the following update from France. Ostertag reported:

The French Constitutional Council, which is similar to the US or Canadian Supreme Court, has upheld most of the current French euthanasia law.

Though euthanasia/assisted suicide will still be essentially as easy to obtain as the original law provided, there are a few freedom of conscience victories in the ruling. Most importantly, pharmacists now have conscience rights, which means that it will no longer be required of pharmacists to provide death drugs. Before this decision, all pharmacists would have been forced to provide the prescription death cocktail should they receive such an order. The judges respected the fundamental rights of pharmacists in this decision, which now means that all medical professionals dealing with MAID (medical aid in dying) will have the right to opt out.

Secondly, the court ruled that private religious establishments/retirement homes that don't want to allow MAID will be allowed to refuse as long as there are other locations nearby where a patient could get euthanized. If there aren't any other locations nearby then religious liberty is overridden by the new right to die. It puts religious establishments and their rights as secondary. However, it doesn't force them to close their doors, which is what would have happened had the Constitutional Council ruled that they didn't have a right to refuse.

Lastly, the court ruled that adults who have legal guardians due to age, IQ, cognitive ability, etc, will still be able to be euthanized so long as the physician carrying out the death has checked with their guardian. The decision doesn't give legal guardians the right to veto the physician, only that they must be consulted. In the end, the doctor still has the final say. This decision is essentially meaningless.

The question is now whether plaintiffs will file an appeal to the European courts, or whether they will accept this decision as is. In reality, the euthanasia law in France is still the second most extreme in the world after Canada and is on track to become the most extreme if those pushing its legalization get their way. They want euthanasia available for children as well as the defacto criminalization of suicide prevention. The 2027 French presidential elections will determine what happens next.

As much as we appreciate that the French Constitutional Court upholding certain conscience rights, it was concerning that religious liberty was treated as a secondary right and not a primary right.

It is shocking that the French Constitutional Court will allow euthanasia for people who cannot consent, such as people with cognitive disabilities. This decision will enable doctors to kill people with dementia, essentially emptying out the care homes.

Europe has not seen such a extreme eugenic law since the fall of Nazi Germany. People with disabilities, in France, need to rise up.

We encourage the plaintiffs to appeal this grave decision to the European court if not we can hope that the results of the 2027 French presidential elections will lead to a change in France.

Euthanasia in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Open Letter to the Members of the Constitutional Council: Medical Aid in Dying in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Dr Paul Saba

By Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine Quebec.

You only need to walk through the halls of a hospital long enough to discover the reality that lies behind the numbers. Patients aren’t just medical records; they’re people. The difference between hope and despair often comes down to a door that opens… or remains closed. The new laws on assisted suicide claim to be about choice, but anyone who has worked in the medical field knows how quickly that “choice” crumbles under pressure. There’s the cancer patient living in a cramped, noisy apartment; the woman with a disability who can’t afford to go grocery shopping; the elderly man living alone who fears for his future. They’re told they have the right to die with dignity, but what they really need is the right to live with dignity.

Canada’s experience should give us pause for thought. Since 2016, when the law was first enacted, 100,000 Canadians have died by medical assistance in dying, many of whom still had years, even decades, left to live. What was initially presented as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. Quebec alone accounts for 8% of the total deaths by assisted dying, the highest rate in Canada and worldwide. These numbers are rising every year.

Initially, the system was based on strict criteria, but the boundaries have quietly shifted. We are hearing more and more stories of people requesting assisted dying because they are unable to access home care, accessible housing, or adequate food. “Dignity” is becoming a code word for cost-cutting, while the most vulnerable find themselves facing a maze with no way out. Consent is not a box to check. It is a conversation, a process, and, above all, a reflection of the options available to the individual.

When a person is sick, frightened, and overwhelmed by bills, to what extent is their freedom of choice truly real? Loneliness and poverty influence decisions just as much as physical distress or a diagnosis. Advocates for this cause believe that safeguards will hold firm, but in practice, the boundaries are shifting. The line between compassion and abandonment is blurring, especially when budgets are tight and beds are scarce. I have seen families exhausted by the burden of care, patients who would rather disappear than ask for help, and medical staff powerless in the face of bureaucracy.

France, just like Canada, lacks adequate health care, particularly when it comes to general practitioners, emergency room doctors, and timely access to specialists. Legalizing assisted suicide without fixing our failing health care systems is tantamount to telling people that some lives are too complicated to be supported. It is easier to pass a law than to put a safety net in place. True dignity comes from community, commitment, and the refusal to abandon anyone. Until every patient has a comfortable bed, quality care, and a sympathetic ear, we will not have the right to offer a way out.

Beyond these practical and moral concerns, the French bill also contradicts the country’s Constitution.

First, unlike in France, where the protection of health enjoys constitutional recognition (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, para. 11, incorporated into the constitutional framework; see, in particular, the case law of the Constitutional Council), the Canadian Constitution contains no provision expressly guaranteeing such a right. The constitutional mandate of the French state is to protect life and health by guaranteeing access to care, treatment, and palliative care, rather than by establishing a medical aid in dying program.

Furthermore, the law on medical assistance in dying disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or associated mental health conditions who, in the absence of adequate care and social support, may feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. This constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional right not only to health and life but also to equality, as it creates a situation where certain citizens are effectively encouraged to die because their needs are not being met.

Similarly, the principle of liberty requires that consent be free and informed. However, when a person is experiencing physical or associated psychological distress, is isolated, and lacks support, their ability to make a clear and not coerced decision is compromised. The law’s failure to guarantee truly voluntary consent risks undermining this fundamental constitutional liberty.

Let me tell you a story. Eight years ago, John (a pseudonym), a highly knowledgeable engineer, came to see me for a cough. A chest X-ray suggested lung cancer. He could have given up at that point, since Canadian law allows patients to refuse tests and seek assisted dying prematurely. But I convinced him to undergo further testing. It turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma, It is entirely treatable. Today, John is alive and in good health.

Unfortunately, a recent study revealed that 13% of patients who died by assisted suicide after a diagnosis of lung cancer had never undergone a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and were less likely to consult oncologists or receive treatment.

Another patient, Rachel (also a pseudonym), in her 50s, was diagnosed with breast cancer. After surgery, tumor cells remained and grew rapidly. At first, frightened and desperate, she refused chemotherapy and immunotherapy, even going so far as to stop eating. Eventually, she agreed to treatment and made a full recovery. Rachel said that cancer can drive a person crazy and cloud their judgment. It was hope that saved her. 

These are not isolated cases. As a physician responsible for reviewing cases of assisted dying, I find that most involve people suffering from medical conditions or disabilities exacerbated by social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain, which could be relieved, is often the least common reason.

A recent study estimated that making assisted dying available to vulnerable groups in Canada—including, but not limited to, the homeless, people with substance use disorders, retirees, the elderly, and Indigenous communities—could save 1,273 billion CAD (791 billion EUR) by 2047, resulting in 2.6 million deaths. This scenario could easily apply to France if it were to follow the same path.

This raises a frightening question: Are we broadening eligibility criteria to eliminate citizens for financial gain rather than to care for and support them? This approach devalues human life and fosters a dangerous mindset, according to which the easy solution to complex health and social problems is to eliminate vulnerable individuals rather than invest in care. It creates a conflict of interest in which governments profit, directly or indirectly, from the deaths of their citizens. It also raises profound ethical questions for healthcare professionals.

France has the opportunity to prevent this. Do not be fooled by rhetoric about autonomy and dignity when basic needs are not being met. Assisted dying destroys hope. It pushes people to give up before their time. Hope is the greatest strength of quality care—the conviction that every step forward counts. Assisted dying prematurely puts an end to that hope.

I urge you to protect the most vulnerable, to invest in care, and to reject laws that offer shortcuts instead of safety nets and options for extended care. Until every patient has access to the care, support, and dignity they deserve, no law authorizing assisted dying can be considered, much less regarded as an act of compassion.

Respectfully, 
Dr. Paul Saba 
Maître Natalia Manole 

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian physician who has practiced medicine around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447 

UK assisted suicide bill will go to a vote on September 11, 2026

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The UK Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that failed to pass earlier this year in the House of Lords has been revived by Lauren Edwards MP with nearly identical language as the failed Leadbeater bill.

On November 29, 2024; Members of the UK House of Commons voted 330 to 275 at second reading to support Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges the UK to Kill the bill not the patients.

The Care Not Killing Alliance stated in their July 17 report that:

Yesterday, Lauren Edwards MP published her Private Member’s Bill. We say “her” bill, but it is essentially the same as the one which foundered in the Lords earlier this year: they could have taken this opportunity to reflect and respond to the many concerns of experts and professional groups, but the clear priority is to leave open the door to use of the Parliament Acts, and so you can be sure that there will be strenuous efforts to prevent MPs from seeking amendments to the Bill.

The House of Lords debate exposed serious flaws with the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill and yet Edwards insists on pushing the same flawed bill because, if passed by the House of Commons, it would not be required to be debated by the House of Lords, where strong opposition to assisted suicide exists.

The Parliament Acts have only been used seven times since 1911 for Government legislation, and it has never been used for a Private Members’ Bill. Edwards assisted suicide is a private members bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is convinced that Edwards, who is a Labour MP for Rochester and Stroud, has introduced a nearly identical assisted suicide bill as the Leadbeater bill in order to invoke The Parliament Acts, which allows the House of Commons to forgo approval from the House of Lords when passing two essentially identical bills within consecutive parliamentary sessions.

A similar parliamentary tactic was used in France where the National Assembly passed identical euthanasia bills on June 30 and July 15 that enabled them to ignore the opposition to the euthanasia bill in the Senate, even though France's Senate is elected.

California also legalized assisted suicide in 2015 with a similar tactic.

Concerning California, on August 18, 2015 we wrote:

The assisted suicide lobby has renewed their push to legalize assisted suicide in California after their previous assisted suicide bill, SB 128, was stopped in the Health Committee.

The assisted suicide lobby is taking advantage of the special legislative session called by Governor Jerry Brown to address shortfalls in healthcare funding. The new assisted suicide bill AB 15 is nearly identical to SB 128, but AB 15 will not be heard by the Health Committee.

In other words, SB 128 was stopped in California's Health Committee, then Governor Brown opened a "special session" to examine shortfalls in healthcare funding that included Bill AB 15, an identical assisted suicide bill to SB 128, which passed in the special session and became law.

 

Edwards appears to be using the same playbook that was used recently in France and in 2015 in California.

 

Kill the bill, not the patients. 

France legalized euthanasia. What's next?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

On July 15, France's National Assembly passed a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 291 to 241. This was the final vote in the National Assembly and it over rides the previous votes rejecting the euthanasia bill in France's Senate.

Agence France-Presse reported on July 15 (translated):

For the fourth time in a year, the National Assembly – the lower house of the French Parliament – approved the bill, by 291 votes to 241 (and 29 abstentions).

In a restraint session, MPs, to whom the government gave the final say after three rejections from the Senate – the upper house – authorized assisted suicide assistance for the first time, or even euthanasia, with a series of conditions.

We are concerned that pressure to expand an already expansive law will lead to quick expansions of the law. Agence France-Presse also reported that:

Before attending the vote, the president of the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD), Jonathan Denis, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the ADMD, spearheading the fight for this new right for decades, would continue to fight on the free choice between assisted suicide and euthanasia or the consideration of advance directives and psychological suffering.

The euthanasia lobby is pushing to expand the law to allow euthanasia by advanced request and euthanasia for mental illness alone, similar to the political push by Canada's euthanasia lobby.

 

Wesley Smith

Based on media reports, Wesley Smith wrote that:

• The bill does not require terminal illness. Rather, it requires a “serious and incurable illness” that “threatens life in an advanced or terminal stage” — meaning death could be years away. The patient must also experience “constant physical or psychological suffering” related to the disease that is “resistant to treatment or unbearable” (as defined by the patient). Psychological suffering alone does not make one eligible for hastened death.

• There is no time set for when a disease “threatens life.”

• Only French legal residents and citizens 18 and over are eligible.

• Doctors can kill requesting patients when they are unable to kill themselves. Inability to self-administer death is not defined.

• There is only a two-day waiting period between approved request and the ability to become dead.

• There are no meaningful conscience protections for doctors unwilling to kill or prescribe poison nor explicit protections for dissenting health-care institutions. While doctors need not personally end life, they must be complicit by providing patients with the names of doctors willing to do the lethal deed.

• France’s national health service will pay for the death (which could save it a lot of money, as expensive patients will be no more). 

The battle is not over. Agence France-Presse reported that:

The President of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced Tuesday that he would refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, to take into account the oppositions that persist, especially on the right.

In a decision that could take place around August 15, the Sages will have to say whether certain clauses, such as the minimum period of reflection of two days granted to the patient after the agreement of doctors to assist in dying, are compatible with the principles of individual freedom and human dignity, according to the services of the Prime Minister.

We hope that the Constitutional Council rejects, or at least moderates the bill. 

France's Presidential election will be in April 2027. It is our hope that Emmanuel Macron will be replaced by someone who opposes euthanasia.

France's Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, opposed the euthanasia bill.

France legalizes euthanasia.

This article was published by National Review online on July 15, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J. Smith

The West continues its love affair with the culture of death as the French National Assembly just voted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, overriding the Senate’s rejection. I haven’t read the bill, but here are a few notes I discerned from various media reports: 

• The bill does not require terminal illness. Rather, it requires a “serious and incurable illness” that “threatens life in an advanced or terminal stage” — meaning death could be years away. The patient must also experience “constant physical or psychological suffering” related to the disease that is “resistant to treatment or unbearable” (as defined by the patient). Psychological suffering alone does not make one eligible for hastened death.

• There is no time set for when a disease “threatens life.”

• Only French legal residents and citizens 18 and over are eligible.

• Doctors can kill requesting patients when they are unable to kill themselves. Inability to self-administer death is not defined.

• There is only a two-day waiting period between approved request and the ability to become dead.

• There are no meaningful conscience protections for doctors unwilling to kill or prescribe poison nor explicit protections for dissenting health-care institutions. While doctors need not personally end life, they must be complicit by providing patients with the names of doctors willing to do the lethal deed.

• France’s national health service will pay for the death (which could save it a lot of money, as expensive patients will be no more).

Please remember that the law as it currently exists will surely not be the permanent ceiling of permissibility but as other jurisdictions illustrate, merely be the launching pad for an ever more expansive euthanasia regime. Moreover, even these weak-tea parameters will probably not be enforced meaningfully, because that’s how the culture of death rolls. And once euthanasia starts, it picks up steam year by year by year as hastened death becomes normalized.

The constitutionality of the law will surely be litigated, which could theoretically prevent it from going into effect. We will see, but that kind of holding action rarely works, and even when it does — as in Portugal — the prohibition doesn’t last for long.

More articles on this topic:

• France's National Assembly legalizes euthanasia (Read). 
• France's Senate once again defeats euthanasia bill (Read).
• France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill. Final vote will be July 15 (Read).

I watched in sadness as France legalized euthanasia.

By Sebastien Ostertag

I watched in sadness and anger as the French National Assembly legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 291 for and 241 against.

Indeed, as many people have pointed out and will point out in time, those who voted for or abstained on the vote have blood on their hands. Emmanuel Macron has blood on his hands. This law, in what it allows and what it will lead to (as many of its proponents have promised), will be the most extreme euthanasia law. 

Before the vote there were a number of speeches, many of which included the classic lies that were made in order to get this horrible bill passed. Multiple speakers including Elise Leboucher, Frederic Valletoux, and others argued that the law was strict and wouldn't impose death upon anyone, or that, as Oceane Godard of the Socialist Party argued, “There is no absolute truth.” All of these are lies that were pushed by the pro-euthanasia activists in order to get enough support for the bill. 

Elise Leboucher, one of the sponsors of the bill, told a quick story about a man she knew who recently died. It was a touching story, though at the end of it she admitted that she didn't know if this man would have chosen assisted suicide or euthanasia. 

A deputy for Emmanuel Macron's Ensemble party made the argument that this law is similar in its greatness to Robert Badinter's law which prohibited capital punishment. Her comparison is beyond ironic, comparing a law ending killing to a law allowing it. Badinter was also opposed to euthanasia. 

Frederic Valletoux, one of the sponsors of the bill, argued that assisted suicide and euthanasia must only be the exception, as in the last resort. This was exactly what Simone Veil, who pushed for the legalization of abortion argued when her bill was being debated. Those who brought up the Veil law also mentioned the right to choose death for themselves, similar to the right to choose abortion. 

Karen Erodi of the extreme-left La France Insoumise stated the quiet part out loud when she complained that the délit d'entrave, which would have criminalized attempting to dissuade someone from committing suicide, had been taken out of the bill. She was joined by Sandrine Rousseau of the far-left Ecologiste party who lamented that minors/children won't have access to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Should their parties win next year, we can already expect what they will attempt to pass into law. 

The greatest and most thoughtful speeches came from both the right, which includes the far-right Rassemblement Nationale, the right-wing UDR, and the center-right Les Républicains, and the hard left, which includes the GDR (the French Communist party).

Communist deputy Yannick Monnet explained that he was in favor of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, but that he would abstain in the vote due to the fact that his proposal to make sure that everyone wanting death had had the opportunity to access palliative care, which isn't available for a majority of the French people, had been voted down. He explained that the bill was, “A major ethical evolution” for the society and that assisted suicide and euthanasia should remain the “exceptional answer,” meaning the exception. 

The speakers for the Rassemblement National and the UDR both gave great speeches against the bill, though the most inspiring was given by LR deputy Justine Gruet who stated that this law “remains the most permissive in the world.” She called out the government and the left for rushing the parliament to pass the bill before the summer and she brought up how the law has no conscience clauses for nurses or religious retirement homes and hospitals. Adults who are under a legal guardianship due to their IQ or some sort of a mental disorder will now be able to ask for suicide even though they can't legally sign anything. There will now be no control requirements to make sure the doctors followed the law until after the death of the patient. Gruet stated before the final vote that,

“Currently if a person tries to commit suicide, society proposes care and accompaniment. If at the moment of doing the act the person hesitates, a jolt of life, in a society of humanity and solicitude, we do not ask the caregiver to push the syringe. Society rests on the same demand: When a human being suffers, it is our duty to help the person through to support, care and accompaniment. 

Does fragility diminish dignity? No, human dignity isn't measured, it isn't calculated, it remains intact in the greatest vulnerability. Its the richness of human life. We are preparing to recognize a right to die without guaranteeing the right everywhere of being cared for and accompanied. How (can we) propose death where we haven't fully offered care? Presence is hope. Personally I would never agree to organize the death of somebody. You are building here, and it's so surprising on the part of the left in this session, a societal model of the law of the strongest against the weakest.

A human never abandons another human, it's a fundamental principle that founds our social compact… Tomorrow this bill won't concern abstract principles, tomorrow it will concern someone you know, someone you love, and that day your responsibility will no longer be judicial, it will be deeply human.”

The fight isn't over, as Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu and the Senate President Gerard Larcher are both asking the French Constitutional Council to review the law and to strike down anything that may be unconstitutional. We must hope and pray that they re-establish the rights of religious establishments to operate without being forced to kill, the extension of the conscience rights for all medical professionals as well as protections for adults under guardianship. 

To fully repeal this law will require a new government. The next French presidential elections are in April 2027. 

We must pray and work for the next government to repeal this horrible law. Should the far-left win, we can be sure that they will extend the “right to suicide” to children and those with only mental illnesses. Worse than that, they will push to criminalize suicide prevention by passing a délit d'entrave. This law could soon become the worst euthanasia law.

Terrible news: France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill.

This is the final vote to legalize euthanasia. The bill will now go to Constitutional Council to determine if it complies with the constitution.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have very bad news for everyone who opposes killing people.

France's National Assembly passed their euthanasia bill by a vote of 291 to 241 on Wednesday, July 15.

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

 

France's Senate has defeated the euthanasia bill three times after the previous votes. This final vote will not go to the Senate for a vote as the National Assembly can pass legislation into law even when they are not able to reach agreement with the Senate.

The issue might not be over yet.

Sylvie Corbet reported for The Associated Press on July 15 that the Prime Minister and the Senate President will refer the bill to the Constitutional Council. Corbet wrote:

Senate President Gérard Larcher and Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said they will refer the bill, once adopted, to the Constitutional Council, which will have up to a month to determine whether it complies with the Constitution. The law would only enter into force once that review has been completed.

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.

Similar to Canada, France's bill legalizes both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Canadian data indicates that nearly every assisted death was the doctor administering the poison (euthanasia) rather than the person self-administering the poison (assisted suicide). Also, like Canada, France's healthcare system will cover the cost of killing.

France's euthanasia bill has been sold to the public as having "strict" safeguards. The truth is that this bill does not limit the killing to exceptional circumstances. This bill employs undefined language that is designed to approve the killing of people by medical staff that have been given legal immunity from prosecution.

France's bill states that the person is limited to - Adults who are French citizens or long-term residents suffering from an incurable and grave illness in an advanced or terminal stage, facing constant, intolerable physical or psychological pain

What does it mean to be suffering from a grave illness? Or to be in an advanced or terminal stage? Or to be facing constant intolerable physical suffering? Or psychological suffering?

Is it possible to determine who is suffering from intolerable physical or psychological suffering? Suffering is personal and subjective. Psychological suffering is real, but is it irremediable?

France's bill suggests that people will be expected to self-administer the lethal substance (assisted suicide). However, if a medical professional confirms the person is physically incapable of doing so, a doctor or nurse can administer it for them (euthanasia).

This is different than Canada's law but, over time, the law will be forced to expand since it is easier for a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison than for a person to self-administer the poison.

France's bill suggests that a medical team (including at least two doctors or a nurse) must verify the patient’s condition and free will.

Having two doctors or a nurse verify a patient's condition is not a "safeguard." In every jurisdiction, there are medical staff who are willing to kill patients who will approve patients for killing and they will work with like minded medical staff to approve the killing. In other words, this system provides little effective oversight of the law.

Patients will "doctor shop." Some medical staff who are willing to kill will interpret the law more widely than others. Some medical staff will not approve killing people under certain circumstances while others will be happy to do so.

France's bill states that medical professionals are not required to participate in the act of killing but they are required to refer patients to medical staff who are willing to arrange the killing. This means that medical professionals who oppose killing must be complicit in the act.

Further to that, medical institutions are required to participate and allow patients to be killed. This provision will force some medical institutions to close.

We hope that the Constitutional Council will reject the euthanasia bill.

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing people. We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide and we support caring options. 

More articles on this topic:

• France's Senate once again defeats euthanasia bill (Read).
• France's National Assembly passes euthanasia bill. Final vote will be July 15 (Read).

France's National Assembly must defeat euthanasia bill. Don't follow Canada's lead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's National Assembly will, once again, vote on a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide on Wednesday, July 15. 

France's euthanasia bill has passed three times in the National Assembly and it has been defeated three times in their Senate. If the bill passes in the National Assembly on July 15, it will legalize euthanasia and bypass the opposition of the Senate.

Similar to Canada, France's euthanasia bill legalizes both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Canadian experience is that nearly every assisted death did so with the doctor administering the poison (euthanasia) rather than the person self-administering the poison (assisted suicide).

In Ontario, Canada's largest province, the 2025 euthanasia report states that, since legalization, there were 28,634 euthanasia deaths and 3 assisted suicide deaths.

France's National Assembly has sold the concept of poisoning people as something that will be done in exceptional circumstances. This is the same argument that was made in Canada, but the opposite has happened.

Euthanasia went from an exception to an expectation in Canada.

In 2025, there were approximately 17,700 medical homicide (euthanasia) deaths in Canada representing approximately 5.6% of all deaths with Québec killing more than 8% of all deaths.

Since Canada legalized medical homicide there has been more than 103,000 assisted deaths. These statistics indicate how killing has become common in Canada.

Don't follow Canada's lead.

Euthanasia has changed the nature of healthcare in Canada. Canada is experiencing a crisis with the cost of healthcare. 

Euthanasia is now being sold to Canadians as a form of healthcare. A recent report indicated that at least 24,000 Canadians died in 2025 while on a waiting list for treatment, once can understand how legalizing euthanasia is not simply an option but for many it is perceived as the only option.

Euthanasia has become a form of healthcare reform since dead people don't require healthcare.

To make things worse, euthanasia laws almost always expand. The death lobby knows that it is harder to legalize euthanasia than it is to expand the law, once it is legal.

Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 with a requirement that a person must be terminally ill before they can be killed by euthanasia. 

In 2021 Canada expanded that law to permit euthanasia based on a person having a "grievous" and "irremediable" medical condition. The law never defined the terms "grievous" and "irremediable." The disability protested the change since the law now specifically focuses on killing people with disabilities.

Once the law expanded to people who were not terminally ill, stories of people with disabilities being approved to be killed because they were living in poverty, homeless, or having difficulty obtaining medical treatment started to be reported in the media. A Mississauga food bank stated that people needing their services were seeking death by euthanasia based on poverty.

France's bill, like every euthanasia bill claims to have "safeguards."

France's euthanasia bill is being sold to the public as having "strict" safeguards. The truth is that none of these bills have "strict" safeguards that limit the killing to exceptional circumstances. These laws employ undefined language that is designed to approve the killing of people by medical staff that have been given total legally immunity from prosecution.

France's bill states that the person is limited to - Adults who are French citizens or long-term residents suffering from an incurable and grave illness in an advanced or terminal stage, facing constant, intolerable physical or psychological pain

What does it mean to be suffering from a grave illness? Or to be in an advanced or terminal stage? Or to be facing constant intolerable physical suffering? Or psychological suffering?

Claire Brosseau, is a Canadian actress who is participating in a court challenge bacause she wants to die by euthanasia based on mental illness alone. Brosseau claims to be living with intolerable psychological suffering. If Brosseau were a long-term resident of France would she be killed by euthanasia?

Is it possible to determine who is suffering from intolerable physical or psychological suffering? Suffering is personal and subjective. Psychological suffering is real, but is it irremediable?

France's bill suggests that people will be expected to self-administer the lethal substance (assisted suicide). However, if a medical professional confirms the person is physically incapable of doing so, a doctor or nurse can administer it for them (euthanasia).

This is different than Canada's law but if passed, the law will be forced to expand since i is easier for a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal poison than for a person to self-administer the poison.

France's bill suggests that a medical team (including at least two doctors or a nurse) must verify the patient’s condition and free will.

Having two doctors or a nurse verify a patient's condition is not a "safeguard." In every jurisdiction, there are medical staff who are willing to kill patients who will approve patients for killing and they will work with like minded medical staff to approve the killing. In other words, this system provides little effective oversight of the law.

Patients will "doctor shop." Some medical staff who are willing to kill will interpret the law more widely than others. Some medical staff will not approve killing people under certain circumstances while others will be happy to do so.

France's bill states that medical professionals are not required to participate in the act of killing but they are required to refer patients to medical staff who are willing to arrange the killing. This means that medical professionals who oppose killing must be complicit in the act.

Further to that, medical institutions are required to participate and allow patients to be killed. This provision will force some medical institutions to close.

France's euthanasia bill includes a 1.1 Billion euro palliative care expansion package. France's Senate has defeated the euthanasia bill three times while overwhelmingly supporting the palliative care expansion package.

Increased funding for palliative care does not assure expansion palliative care availability. Most provinces in Canada pay for euthanasia through palliative care funding codes. Therefore, it is impossible to know how much money is being spent on palliative care and how much money is being spent on killing. 

Québec physician urges France to reject euthanasia.

Last week, France's Senate rejected the euthanasia bill for the third time. France's constitution allows the National Assembly to bipass the opposition from the Senate and pass the euthanasia bill. The National Assembly has scheduled a vote on the euthanasia bill on July 15.

Dr Paul Saba

The following letter from Dr Paul Saba was sent (in French) to the members of France's National Assembly.

To the Honorable Members of the National Assembly,

As France debates the legalization of medical assistance in dying, as a family physician in Montreal, Canada, I would like to warn the French people against the risks of embarking on this path that Canada has been following since 2016.

Let me begin with a personal experience. Eight years ago, one of my patients, Jim (a pseudonym), came to see me for a cough, thinking he had a cold. I ordered a Chest X-Ray. According to the radiologist’s report, Jim appeared to have lung cancer. I sat down with Jim and told him, “We need to do a CT scan immediately. You need to see a specialist. We need to do a bronchoscopy…”

Jim replied, “Dr. Saba, I know you’re against assisted suicide, but you know what? I don’t necessarily agree with you. “If I'm going to die, if my time has come...” I replied, "No, no. You need to go through all the steps of the diagnostic process, because this is only a preliminary diagnosis. Even if it is lung cancer, it's a disease that can be treated today. There are new treatments available. It might not even be lung cancer.”

I spoke with the radiologist who had performed the lung CT scan; he told me, “We don’t know exactly what it is. It looks like lung cancer, but it could be lymphoma, which would be highly treatable. ”

Jim is an intelligent, well-informed man, an engineer, who thought he had a cold, only to be told he might have cancer. He could have resigned himself to medical assistance in dying before even knowing what it was, since Canadian law allows a person to refuse all the testing necessary to confirm the diagnosis. He could have lost hope when the situation was still full of hope.

The power to move people to give up is one of the dangerous and misleading aspects of medically assisted dying. However, I was able to get his attention and persuade him that the situation was hopeful and that he should get more tests and undergo treatment. Today eight years after diagnosis, investigations and treatment he is happy to be alive with no further evidence of disease. He was finally diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is a condition that is highly curable with targeted medical treatment.

A recent Canadian study found that nearly one-third of patients diagnosed with “lung cancer” who died by assisted suicide did not have a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer. Furthermore, they were less likely to consult a radiation oncologist or medical oncologist and less likely to receive treatment. This is what happens when the door is opened to assisted dying.

Since 2016, more than 100,000 Canadians have undergone assisted death —many with years or even decades, to live. What was initially began as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people suffering from chronic illnesses, often with associated mental health issues (psychological distress). The numbers continue to rise each year (Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying). Quebec, the province where I practice medicine, has the highest rate of medical assistance in dying in Canada and the world, accounting for 7.6% of all deaths. (Québec MAiD data). 

In 2021, the law was expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and disabilities, in addition to those suffering from terminal illnesses. Those with fragile health are also considered candidates for assisted death.

As a physician, I serve on a committee at one of Canada’s most prestigious medical centers, responsible for reviewing cases of medical assistance in dying. The majority of the cases I have reviewed involve people with medical conditions or disabilities, most of whom have associated psychological and social factors that strongly influence their decision to seek medical assistance in dying. These factors include social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain is the least common reason. My experience is corroborated by the recent Canadian report on medical assistance in dying. (Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying).  

Another of my patients, Rachel (a pseudonym), in her fifties, underwent a screening mammogram followed by a biopsy that confirmed a diagnosis of breast cancer, which was treated surgically. However, traces of tumor cells remained and were growing rapidly. She was advised to undergo chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but she refused out of fear of side effects. She had given up hope and had even stopped eating. Eventually, she was persuaded to undergo treatment, which she ultimately accepted. Rachel has recovered very well: there is no longer any trace of the tumor or metastases. She says that when you have cancer, it can drive you crazy and prevent you from making good decisions.

Ultimately, hope is one of the most powerful forces driving quality medical care. When I say hope is a powerful force for health, I mean that hope inspires us to be patient, to seeing processes through, and to regard every step as part of the great gift of being made for life. Assisted death destroys this hope and leads people to give up on life before their time. For these reasons, I ask you to vote against medical assistance in dying.

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian who has practiced medicine in Canada and around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447

France's Senate once again rejects euthanasia bill.

France's National Assembly will have a final vote on July 15

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

France's euthanasia bill was once again defeated on July 7 by France's Senate (third time) but based on France's constitution the euthanasia bill may still be passed into law by France's National Assembly on July 15.

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

We then reported on July 2 that France's Senate Social Affairs Committee proposed not to debate the euthanasia bill. There was logic to this proposal since the National Assembly can over-ride the decision of the Senate. 

We are thankful that France's Senate once again rejected the bill.

In the last few days there has been a scandal with Laurent Panifous, the Minister Delegate for Relations with Parliament, organizing a big euthanasia legalization party with government money, that has subsequently been cancelled.

The Senate Social Affairs Committee stated that this bill is like no other and using constitional means to forcefully legalize euthanasia is simply wrong.

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.

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.

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.