After the Easter break, the deputies resumed discussions on a proposed law related to end-of-life issues. These discussions were sometimes tense but resulted in a vote on Article 4, which outlines the conditions for accessing “assisted dying.” Only three amendments were accepted, aiming to clarify that serious and incurable conditions can have various causes, not just medical ones but also accidental.
Some deputies, like Cyrille Isaac-Sibille and Agnès Firmin Le Bodo, want to make sure that psychological suffering alone is not a reason for euthanasia or assisted suicide. They believe it is essential to protect vulnerable individuals. However, their proposals were rejected, with the general rapporteur, Olivier Falorni, arguing that no type of suffering should be prioritized over another.
There were also concerns about people with intellectual disabilities potentially being excluded from this law, as highlighted by over 1,600 members of a collective. An amendment to exclude them was also turned down, emphasizing the risk that this law could pose to the most vulnerable.
Another amendment suggested that a person should not be in a state of psychological weakness that could impair their judgment when requesting euthanasia. This was also rejected, raising concerns about the fairness of allowing someone to choose euthanasia when they might not be able to make other important decisions.
The issue of incarcerated individuals was briefly addressed, focusing on their access to healthcare.
During lengthy debates on amendments from various political groups, discussions about adding euthanasia to advanced directives did not succeed, as the rapporteurs were against it.
By the end of the discussions on Article 4, a framework for accessing “assisted dying” was established. To qualify, a patient must be an adult, a French citizen or resident, suffering from a serious and incurable condition that threatens their life, and must experience unbearable physical or psychological suffering. The patient must also be able to express their wishes freely and clearly.
Olivier Falorni stressed the importance of maintaining balance in the current draft of the law, suggesting that the goal is to establish the principle of “assisted dying” before considering further changes. However, some deputies warned that the safeguards could be removed in the future.
As they moved on to Article 5 regarding procedures, some deputies attempted to remove the article to show their opposition to the law. They argued that it disrupts access to care and raises ethical concerns. Despite their efforts, all attempts to remove the article were rejected.
Further amendments concerning advanced directives and the need for written requests for “assisted dying” were also brought forward but were turned down. The request could be made orally, without the need for witnesses.
As the evening progressed, tensions rose during the discussions. Some deputies accused others of not understanding the proposed law. The president of the Social Affairs Commission tried to calm things down and highlighted the quality of the commission’s work.
There were discussions about consulting a trusted person or family if the patient is under legal protection, but this was deemed unnecessary by the rapporteur and rejected. One amendment regarding the adaptation of information for protected individuals was approved despite initial disapproval from the rapporteur, recognizing the importance of meeting the needs of people with disabilities.
The commission paused its work around midnight, leaving many amendments still to be reviewed. It seemed that the deputies were growing weary of the lengthy discussions.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : « ce texte prépare et permet toutes les dérives »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..