On a recently seen a heated discussion in parliament about a controversial topic: the conscience clause for pharmacists and medical interns. This topic came up again during a session on a Friday evening, where lawmakers were trying to address the rights of pharmacists in relation to their involvement in assisted dying, a practice being debated.
Nicole Dubré-Chirat, a member of the parliament, stated that the conscience clause is a fundamental balance. However, Olivier Falorni, the main reporter of the law, dismissed various proposed amendments meant to protect pharmacists and medical interns. He argued that pharmacists’ role in assisted dying is indirect, so they don’t need the same protections.
Philippe Juvin, a doctor and member of parliament, advocated for protections for medical interns, saying it was unfair that only full doctors had the right to opt out based on conscience, especially since interns perform deep sedations. He compared the situation to abortion rights, suggesting that just like medical students have a conscience clause for abortion, they should have one for assisted dying too.
Despite these arguments, all proposed amendments were rejected. There was also a discussion about the obligation for doctors who refuse to assist in dying to refer patients to someone who would. Some lawmakers opposed this, feeling it forced doctors to participate against their beliefs. The health minister insisted on this requirement to ensure continuity of care, similar to the rules for abortion services.
Another proposal aimed to introduce a conscience clause at the institutional level, expressing concerns that some hospitals might refuse to hire staff involved in assisted dying. This was met with strong opposition, as some believed it could lead to discrimination in hiring practices.
As the debate continued, many amendments aimed at giving more protections were rejected, and ultimately, the article concerning these issues was passed with a significant majority.
Next, lawmakers discussed the control and evaluation of the assisted dying process. Some argued that the proposed checks would not be effective, as the review would often be done by the doctors themselves, leading to questions of accountability. Thibault Bazin expressed that this was just a false sense of security created by complicated wording.
The discussion moved quickly, with Elise Leboucher arguing against making the consent process complicated, as this could delay help for patients suffering from terminal illnesses. Lawmakers decided that a commission could refer cases to a disciplinary body if they saw any wrongdoing by healthcare providers, a change from the original proposal.
In terms of evaluating the costs associated with assisted dying, a controversial amendment was dismissed, leaving unanswered questions about the financial implications of this practice. After a long session, most lawmakers left the chamber, and they still had many amendments to debate.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Après la collégialité et les recours, le contrôle : « encore un faux semblant »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..