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.

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.

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.

France National Assembly passes euthanasia bill. Final vote will be July 15.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have bad news.  

Sebastien Ostertag reported from France that the French National Assembly voted to support the euthanasia bill by a vote of 295 to 232 against.

The bill will go back to France's Senate but even if France's Senate defeats the euthanasia bill again, the National Assembly can over-ride the Senate if they vote to legalize on July 15, 2026.

On May 27, 2025, the French National Assembly passed the euthanasia bill by a vote of 305 to 199. On January 21, 2026, France's Senate defeated the bill by 181 to 122.

On February 25, 2026, the French National Assembly passed the euthanasia bill again. France's Senate once again defeated the bill on Monday May 11, 2026 by a vote of 151 to 118. The Senate then passed, by a vote of 325 to 18, the part of the law that improves access to palliative care.

Ostertag reported that the opposition has two weeks to change 32 votes before the final vote on July 15. Ostertag explains:

• If the bill passes: 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.

Unfortunately, the effort to put the question of euthanasia on the ballot through a parliamentary and constitutional procedure was struck down by the Conseil Constitutionnel, (French Supreme Court) which means that the July 15th vote is the last say, at least until after the next presidential election.

France's government strongly supports the euthanasia bill and has pressured members of the National Assembly to support it. President Emmanuel Macron and the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet both support legalizing euthanasia.

France needs to examine the experience with euthanasia in Québec and completely reject the bill. Québec legalized euthanasia based on "exceptional circumstances" in 2015. The French Canadian province now has the highest euthanasia rate in the world.

France's euthanasia bill would criminalize suicide prevention.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sebastien Ostertag, an American who is living in France, sent EPC an analysis of France's euthanasia bill. 

France's euthanasia bill not only gives medical professionals the right in law to be directly involved with killing their patients the bill would also criminalize suicide prevention. Ostertag explains:

This bill would not only allow the killing of the physically and mentally ill, but would also do what no country in world history has ever done, which is to criminalize, with two years imprisonment, suicide prevention.

Ostertag continued:

The French bill would also criminalize anyone attempting to dissuade someone from committing suicide through assisted suicide or euthanasia. This applies to psychologists, therapists, priests, teachers, parents, doctors, and even organizations attempting to prevent suicide.

Ostertag explains:

Article 17, Section 2 states, “Is punished with two years imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros the act of stopping or trying to stop the practicing, or informing on medical aid in dying by any method including through electronic communication and online, notably by the transmitting of allegations or indications…with a goal of dissuasion, on the characteristics or consequences of medical aid in dying.”

Section 3 criminalizes trying to disrupt in any way the locations where euthanasia and assisted suicides will occur, which would mean that you couldn’t go to the hospital to try to dissuade your 18-year-old teenager or the doctor prepared to euthanize them.

That is followed by Section 4, which criminalizes the exercising of “moral or psychological pressure, by threatening or any act of intimidation towards people trying to be informed on medical aid in dying, the personnel participating in medical aid in dying, the people wishing to have recourse to medical aid in dying…” This means that any attempt to dissuade a loved one would be illegal.

All of this is topped off by the last section, which gives activist “right to die” organizations the legal right to file lawsuits against individuals and organizations that violate the delit d’entrave. These organizations have already stated that they will go after religious retirement homes and institutions that refuse to participate in assisted suicide and euthanasia. These groups would sue parents who try to keep their depressed 18-year-olds from getting assisted suicide.

Ostertag is urging the US government to condemn the French euthanasia bill. He believes that if this bill is stopped that it would likely die since President Emmanuel Macron is very unpopular.

Ostertag article: (Link).