On April 9, the Social Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly had a serious meeting to discuss two important proposals related to end-of-life care. Catherine Vautrin, the Minister of Labor, Health, Solidarity, and Families, and Yannick Neuder, the Deputy Minister for Health, were there to explain these proposals, which focus on palliative care and end-of-life assistance. This discussion revealed some deep ethical and political tensions.
Catherine Vautrin argued that her proposals are “balanced” and based on two main ideas: everyone should have access to palliative care, and there should be a special framework for “exceptional situations” where assisted dying could be allowed under strict conditions. She emphasized that this is a serious matter involving life and death. Vautrin made it clear that her plan is not about euthanasia, but instead, assistance would only be provided if a patient is unable to end their life on their own.
Olivier Falorni, who supports the end-of-life proposal, described it as a significant law promoting freedom, equality, and brotherhood. He argued that it would provide an option for patients suffering from terminal illnesses who do not want to endure prolonged suffering. However, some critics worry that this could create a “right to die” too easily.
Yannick Neuder pointed out that currently, only half of those who need palliative care actually receive it. With an aging population, the need for such care is expected to rise by 15% by 2034, meaning around 440,000 people will require it. The proposal aims to better organize palliative care services and create new care centers. There was some debate about what to call these centers, with some members of the committee expressing concerns over terminology.
The meeting also highlighted sensitive issues, such as the concept of “discernment.” Vautrin stated that patients who have lost consciousness due to neurodegenerative diseases would not qualify for assisted dying since they cannot make rational decisions. This response came after questions from a member of the committee about whether the proposal could include people with chronic, unbearable suffering, including minors.
Another controversial topic was whether pharmacists should have the right to refuse to participate in the assisted dying process. The government argued against this, claiming that there is no direct link between the pharmacist and the patient since the lethal substance would be given to a healthcare professional, not directly to the patient. Critics pointed out that without the lethal substance, euthanasia would not be possible.
Throughout the debate, some members of the National Assembly expressed disappointment that the government chose to present a standard bill instead of a more structured one, which could allow for a better discussion. They even called for a referendum on the issue, but Vautrin responded that such a societal topic cannot be put to a referendum without changing the Constitution.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : Catherine Vautrin défend deux textes « équilibrés »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..