On Friday night, discussions about access to “assisted dying” began around 10 PM. There are five criteria that need to be looked at: two are about administration, and three are related to medical issues. Some lawmakers want to make these criteria easier, while others think they are already too relaxed.
The first criterion discussed is age. Some lawmakers, like Marie Mesmeur, argue that 18 is an “arbitrary age” and that the age limit should be reconsidered. However, Patrick Hetzel believes it is crucial to protect minors and warns against allowing access to euthanasia for anyone under 18. He insists that we should prioritize the safety of young people.
Olivier Falorni, who is leading the discussions, also opposes allowing euthanasia for minors but for different reasons. He sees the age limit as a necessary balance in the law, even though it might overlook some painful situations. Sandrine Rousseau suggests that eventually, they should allow minors to access assisted dying, following international examples. Philippe Juvin points out that once euthanasia is legalized, current restrictions may be lifted, indicating that the rules set now could just be a starting point.
The second administrative criterion under discussion is about nationality or whether someone lives legally in France. Some lawmakers argue that euthanasia should be a universal human right and should not be limited by legal or administrative criteria. Sandrine Rousseau insists that if French citizens can access assisted dying, then everyone in France, including undocumented immigrants, should have the same right. Danielle Simonnet echoes this sentiment, emphasizing equality in life and death regardless of legal status.
The general rapporteur, Olivier Falorni, and others wish to keep the nationality requirement in place, arguing that they need to find a balance to ensure the law passes without going too far. There is also concern about the idea of “death tourism,” where people might travel to access euthanasia. Olivier Falorni strongly rejects this idea, suggesting instead that it is more about people seeking refuge from suffering.
Next, the lawmakers discussed the medical criteria, specifically what it means to be in a “serious and incurable condition.” Many found these terms unclear. There were calls to clarify what “advanced or terminal phase” means, as it is based on an opinion from the health authority that has been pending for over a year. Some lawmakers expressed doubt that they could effectively legislate without this clarification.
Patrick Hetzel suggested returning to a definition of “imminent death” because many people in France suffer from serious conditions. He highlighted that some patients who still have years to live might be affected by the proposed law, which raised further concerns about how vague the criteria are.
Olivier Falorni argued against simplifying the criteria and insisted that the current definitions are sufficient. He believes there is no need to define “medium term” conditions. The discussions revealed contradictions, as some lawmakers had previously framed the proposal as only for rare cases.
The debates were intense, and by midnight, the lawmakers had not yet voted on the crucial article. They were trying to strike a balance to ensure the law passed while acknowledging that the criteria could change later once euthanasia becomes more accepted. Following a two-week parliamentary break, there are only four days left for discussions before the assembly votes. More than 16 articles are still up for debate, and it looks like the discussions will continue to be lengthy, leaving the timing of a resolution uncertain.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Euthanasier les sans-papiers ? Une proposition de… certains députés de gauche”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..