On Friday, after the proposal for palliative care was approved, members of the Social Affairs Committee began discussing a controversial law about “end of life” care. This law aims to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. While palliative care received unanimous support, the topic of euthanasia sparked heated debates among the lawmakers, with many interrupting each other.
There were 1,106 amendments to review, almost double the number for the palliative care law. Some lawmakers, like René Pilato, expressed impatience, arguing that they didn’t need to spend so much time debating since they had already covered most of the important points last year.
The choice of words was a significant point of contention. Patrick Hetzel and other lawmakers opposed to “assisted dying” began by arguing to remove Article 1 of the proposal, but their attempts were rejected. The discussions quickly shifted to the meaning of terms used in the law. Olivier Falorni, the general rapporteur of the text, insisted on using “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide” or “euthanasia,” claiming it was a more suitable phrase. His viewpoint won, and amendments to clarify the terms were rejected.
The first article of the proposal, out of 20, was adopted, which officially included “assisted dying” in public health law. For some, like Yannick Monnet, this represented a new “right,” while for others, like Patrick Hetzel, it was seen as a significant change in society’s values.
As they discussed Article 2, which defines “assisted dying,” there were clear divisions. Some members of the Republican Right wanted to exclude minors from the process, aware that criteria could change over time, as seen in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. Falorni opposed an amendment that would allow euthanasia for individuals who had previously expressed their wishes in advance directives, to avoid complications and ensure the bill progressed.
Euthanasia was no longer seen merely as an “exception.” Patrick Juvin tried to keep only assisted suicide in the proposal, similar to laws in Oregon. However, in countries that allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia, over 80% of cases are euthanasia, making it the norm rather than an exception. Falorni firmly disagreed with this change. Instead, an amendment was adopted allowing patients to choose whether they would self-administer the lethal substance or have it administered by someone else.
Several amendments aimed to expand who could administer the lethal substance beyond healthcare professionals, but Falorni opposed this, as it had sparked public concern in previous discussions. Article 2 was adopted without any amendments.
Before voting on Article 3, Brigitte Liso proposed that information about assisted dying should be presented in a way that everyone can understand. Some lawmakers supported this, believing it was essential to inform all citizens, including those with disabilities. However, Hetzel criticized the idea, suggesting it could promote assisted dying, leading to Liso withdrawing her amendment.
As the debate continued, lawmakers discussed the role of palliative care in relation to euthanasia. Hetzel insisted that access to palliative care should be a requirement before any request for euthanasia, while Falorni argued that such a condition would infringe on patients’ rights. He emphasized the commitment to improving access to palliative care with substantial funding over the next decade.
Annie Vidal later proposed adding the term “active” to “assisted dying,” wanting to clarify the nature of euthanasia. However, this amendment was also rejected. Throughout the discussions, it was clear that supporters of the bill were determined to see it passed, despite concerns about clarity and the implications of the law.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : la stratégie des députés pour faire passer un texte clivant”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..