As discussions about a new law to allow “assisted dying” begin in the French National Assembly, 575 legal experts are expressing their concerns about the injustice and potential dangers of this proposal.
For several years, many people have been deeply affected by the suffering of those facing incurable diseases or difficult end-of-life situations. It’s hard not to feel empathy for those who are suffering, whether they’re friends or strangers. In these painful circumstances, the government has two options: they can provide the medical resources needed to ease suffering through palliative care, or they can allow for these troubled lives to be ended through assisted dying, which can be requested by the person themselves (assisted suicide) or carried out by a healthcare professional (euthanasia). While France is known for its palliative care, there is currently a severe lack of resources available to everyone who needs them.
Recently, a new law proposing “assisted dying” was discussed and approved in a committee within the National Assembly. This law will soon be debated in a larger assembly before being sent to the Senate. Legal professionals, including professors, judges, and lawyers, are warning the public about the injustice of labeling death as a form of care and the serious consequences this could have for a society that is already facing many challenges.
The principle behind the assisted dying law represents a significant shift in societal values. This law would make assisted suicide and euthanasia a legal right. The role of doctors and nurses is to heal, support, and relieve suffering—not to cause death. This change could undermine the unique value of each human life and alter how society views medical professionals. Allowing for the administration of death would fundamentally change the medical profession’s purpose.
Moreover, legalizing assisted suicide raises questions about what it means to help someone in danger. If the choice to die becomes central, why should we continue to oppose suicide in general? What would happen to laws against encouraging suicide? Would people be seen as wrong for trying to save someone who wants to end their life? This creates a huge dilemma, and if the government endorses this choice, it could affect us all.
The lawmakers seem to be aware of the problems with their proposal, as they hardly use the word “death.” Instead, they create terms that sound less harsh, like calling a death from assisted dying a “natural death.” This language manipulation is concerning. Death is being treated as just another healthcare option.
Currently, doctors would not be forced to perform euthanasia; they have the right to refuse on moral grounds. However, they would still be required to refer the patient to another doctor who does perform euthanasia. Unfortunately, pharmacists do not have the same right to refuse, meaning they could be compelled to prepare lethal substances for patients. This removes an essential freedom that should be available in a democratic society.
The law is also quite vague about the rules for checking if euthanasia or assisted suicide was done properly. For example, one part of the law states that a patient’s request for assistance in dying can only be challenged by the patient themselves, which raises the question of how a deceased person could go to court. There are no real safeguards to protect against misuse.
Legal experts are particularly worried about harsh penalties included in the law, such as a year in prison and a fine for those who try to stop or inform others about assisted dying. This could mean that expressing concern about the medical consequences of assisted dying might be considered a crime. Moreover, the law does not include penalties for those who encourage assisted suicide, showing a biased approach to free speech.
This proposal is part of a broader trend, as some neighboring countries have already legalized euthanasia. In Belgium, for instance, the law has extended to minors since 2014, which has led to an increase in cases involving people suffering from depression. The French proposal is following a similar path, as it includes provisions for those with “psychological suffering.”
If this “right” to assisted dying is accepted, it raises alarming questions about the value of lives deemed unproductive or too costly. This shift could create a serious injustice that damages societal cohesion and the dignity of individuals. Our laws should not imply that life has relative value since it is the foundation for all other rights.
As legal professionals, we have a responsibility to alert the public about the dangers of this “assisted dying” proposal. Instead of opening the door to such drastic measures, we should focus on helping doctors uphold their Hippocratic oath: “I will never intentionally cause harm.” We need to provide them with the resources to heal and alleviate suffering, creating a truly compassionate society that cares for its most vulnerable members.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Ouverture du « droit à l’aide à mourir » : une « profonde et irréparable injustice »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..