On May 16, a discussion about a proposed law concerning end-of-life care began right after another discussion about palliative care. This new proposal is about the right to assisted dying, which is a controversial topic. Only about 130 of the 577 deputies in the Assembly were present, raising concerns about the seriousness of the debate.
Charles Sitzenstuhl, a deputy, started the session by stressing the importance of ensuring that all opinions are heard during such a crucial debate. He expressed worry that the rules for the discussions would not allow for enough time to cover everyone’s views. The president of the session, Jérémie Iordanoff, reassured him by saying that there are 2,600 amendments to discuss, so there would be plenty of opportunities to speak, although he would limit the number of speakers per amendment to one for and one against.
Yannick Monnet disagreed with this limit, claiming that the topic was too important to restrict discussions. He and others questioned the urgency of passing this law, especially since palliative care is not yet widely available in France.
The debate quickly revealed strong opposing views. Christophe Bentz from the National Rally called the proposal a significant ethical and social break, arguing that it risks society’s values. He advocated for improving palliative care as the better alternative. Philippe Juvin from the Republicans asked what kind of society we want to create: one focused on compassion through care, or one where we provide death on request.
Dominique Potier from the Socialists expressed his opposition by emphasizing that life should be preserved and that the law’s idea of “freedom” was misleading when many people lack access to proper care. He feared the most vulnerable people might suffer the most if this law passed.
Some supporters of the proposal, like Hadrien Clouet from the left, argued that forcing someone to suffer is akin to torture and that the proposal represents a step towards freedom. He, along with others, believed the moment had come for this law, claiming that many French people want it.
As discussions progressed, deputies examined the details of the proposal. Some raised concerns about the first article, questioning whether ending a life could be considered a form of healthcare. Others argued that allowing assisted dying could undermine the core mission of healthcare professionals, which is to save lives.
Despite the disagreements, a majority of deputies voted to accept the first article of the proposal, which would include assisted dying in public health codes.
As the debate continued, discussions shifted to the terminology used in the proposal. Some argued that “assisted dying” was a euphemism, and that using terms like “euthanasia” or “assisted suicide” would provide clarity. Others insisted that the language should remain as it is to avoid negative connotations associated with certain terms.
The debates are ongoing, with more discussions scheduled. While some amendments have been proposed, none have yet been accepted. The topic remains highly divisive, reflecting deep societal questions about life, death, and the role of healthcare.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : le poids des mots, le choc des positions”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..