On Friday morning, members of the Social Affairs Commission voted on Article 14 of a proposed law concerning the end of life. This article aimed to introduce a conscience clause, but many professionals would be excluded from its protection.
Throughout the discussions, numerous amendments were rejected. Only four were accepted, including three from the report’s author, Stéphane Delautrette. The atmosphere was tense, with heated exchanges among the members.
The conscience clause, which allows healthcare providers to opt out of certain medical procedures for moral or ethical reasons, was not extended to nurses and caregivers. Patrick Hetzel pointed out that while there is a general conscience clause, it doesn’t apply in emergencies and isn’t valid for all healthcare workers. He argued that the clause should also protect nurses and medical assistants involved in end-of-life procedures.
Philippe Juvin highlighted the emotional aspect of end-of-life care, stating that even tasks like washing the deceased are significant and should respect the beliefs of those performing them. However, his argument was dismissed.
Many members of the Republican Right and the National Rally tried to extend the same protection to pharmacists. They questioned why doctors could refuse medical actions based on their beliefs, but pharmacists could not. The report’s author argued that pharmacists do not participate directly in the act of assisted dying.
Hadrien Clouet compared this situation to abortion, where pharmacists also lack a conscience clause. He emphasized that recognizing a person’s right over their own body means respecting their autonomy in all aspects, including assisted dying. Unfortunately, all amendments to protect pharmacists were rejected.
Thibault Bazin proposed an amendment to protect healthcare institutions from being forced to perform actions that contradict their ethical standards, arguing that euthanasia is not a medical treatment. This amendment, along with others, was also rejected.
The proposal mandates that healthcare providers who object to participating in assisted dying must inform their patients and refer them to someone who will. Some members wanted a strict 48-hour deadline for this notification, but these suggestions were turned down in favor of a more flexible approach where information must be given promptly.
Patrick Hetzel attempted to introduce the idea of a volunteer system for healthcare workers who want to assist with euthanasia, but this was rejected too. The report’s author feared that a public registry could lead to professionals being stigmatized.
Overall, the focus of the law has been on individual freedom regarding end-of-life choices. However, healthcare professionals feel sidelined in this discussion, as their rights and beliefs are not being adequately considered. Advocates for assisted dying view this proposed law as a step towards greater freedom, but it raises significant questions about the rights of those who provide care.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “La clause de conscience refusée aux pharmaciens, au nom de « la souveraineté de la personne sur elle-même, qu’il s’agisse d’une interruption de grossesse ou du droit de mourir dans la dignité »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..