On Wednesday, the discussion about the proposed law on palliative care continued without major issues in the early stages. The focus was on articles related to long-term planning and funding evaluation for palliative care. There were only a few amendments made. The National Rally group managed to include a goal for pediatric palliative care, while the Socialist and Democratic Left groups got their amendments approved to ensure public funding for volunteer organizations. Additionally, the Republicans succeeded in adding an amendment that requires a clear evaluation of how accessible palliative care is.
Things heated up when they reached article 8, where Christophe Marion suggested that the title of the specialized diploma in palliative medicine should also include “assisted dying.” This sparked controversy, as the medical community had already raised concerns about including such practices in medical training. Some representatives voiced the need to keep discussions about assisted dying separate from palliative care.
Charles Sitzenstuhl stressed the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the two topics. He expressed frustration, asking why some politicians wanted to mix these discussions, which could undermine their efforts to reach a consensus. Justine Gruet argued that it didn’t make sense to include training for something currently illegal in a law about palliative care. Amendments to remove mentions of “assisted dying” from medical training received support, creating confusion since they contradicted the earlier amendment which had been adopted.
Yannick Monnet pointed out that the term “assisted dying” was being used too casually compared to “euthanasia,” suggesting that this could create misunderstandings about the purpose of palliative care. Patrick Hetzel warned that mixing these discussions could harm the overall effort to find a national consensus on palliative care.
After a call for a second review of the amendment by Christophe Marion, which would only happen later if the government agreed, the deputies continued their discussion. The Republicans decided not to vote for article 8 as a precaution, signaling their preference to wait for further clarification. Eventually, article 8 was voted on, but it failed with more deputies opposing it than supporting it.
Efforts to regain consensus continued, leading to a proposal to remove a newly added article that aimed to introduce life and death education in schools, which had been added in committee. The aim was to refocus on palliative care. This removal was overwhelmingly supported by the deputies.
Before the session ended, article 9 was adopted, with the president of the session humorously commenting on the speed of their work, encouraging them to keep the discussions going in the next session.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Prenez vos responsabilités ! » : le consensus sur les soins palliatifs préservé dans la douleur”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..