On Wednesday, lawmakers focused on a law proposal about the “right to assisted dying,” discussing specific procedures related to this topic. The conversations highlighted concerns about protecting vulnerable individuals and how decisions should be made collectively.
One of the main points of discussion was the process for requesting assisted dying. A rare occurrence happened when two amendments were accepted. One, proposed by Christophe Bentz, stated that requests for assisted dying cannot be done through teleconsultation. Olivier Falorni, the general reporter, argued that this was too strict for confirming requests. Another amendment by Laurent Mazaury was accepted, allowing requests to be made at patients’ homes or wherever they are being cared for if they cannot visit their doctor.
Debate continued with an amendment from Thibault Bazin, which aimed to ensure someone could only make a new request for assisted dying if their situation had significantly changed since their last request. Patrick Hetzel emphasized the need for a clear record of the entire process, but this amendment was rejected.
As discussions progressed, tensions rose. Alexandre Allegret-Pilot introduced an amendment suggesting an 18-month waiting period between a request and the act of assisted dying. The general reporter opposed this, stating that most people would likely pass away before the waiting period ended. Sandrine Rousseau passionately argued that this delay would be inhumane, while others questioned why they should give more time to individuals and their families. Ultimately, the amendment was rejected.
Later, the topic shifted to nationality, with Christine Pirès Beaune proposing that verification by local authorities happen “without delay.” This led to heated comments, with some claiming the extreme left was advocating for euthanasia for foreigners. Danielle Simonnet clarified that they were not advocating for anyone’s death based on their background, but rather seeking equal rights for everyone.
Numerous attempts were made to enhance protections for vulnerable individuals. Some lawmakers suggested stricter checks to ensure that those under legal protection could not request assisted dying without careful consideration. However, these amendments were repeatedly rejected.
Philippe Juvin highlighted the importance of ensuring patients are fully capable of understanding their requests throughout the process. He and others pushed for mandatory mental health support for patients seeking assisted dying, but these proposals were also turned down.
One amendment aimed to ensure that doctors would not pressure anyone into choosing assisted dying, but it was also rejected. The debate then touched on the broader issues of suicide and the emotional struggles families face, with some drawing parallels between assisted dying and suicide, which caused further friction during discussions.
As the night progressed, there was a call for better collaboration in decision-making. Thibault Bazin proposed an amendment that would ensure a more collective approach to these decisions, but it was also rejected. The conversation returned to the need to protect the most vulnerable, with many emphasizing that this should be a fundamental ethical rule.
Stella Dupont suggested removing a clause meant to protect those whose judgment is seriously impaired by illness. This sparked debate, as some lawmakers pointed out that this clause was crucial for safeguarding the vulnerable. Many amendments aimed at changing the wording to remove the term “seriously” in relation to impaired judgment were suggested, but only one was accepted.
Patrick Hetzel argued that protecting vulnerable people should be an absolute ethical rule, with others agreeing that discussions around these matters should not stigmatize those with mental health issues. The session ended with a clear divide between those wanting to advocate for the vulnerable and those pushing for a right to assisted dying that they believe should be available to everyone. All amendments aimed at enhancing protections were ultimately rejected.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Droit à l’aide à mourir » : « Moi j’avais cru comprendre que quand on est plutôt de gauche, c’est quand même la vocation la première de protéger les faibles, de protéger les vulnérables »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..