During a recent session in the French National Assembly, lawmakers discussed a proposed law concerning the “right to assisted dying.” The atmosphere was tense, with only a few deputies present, but the discussion was crucial. They were working through Article 17 of the proposal, which included a significant amendment related to preventing interference in assisted dying.
Christophe Bentz, a member of the Rassemblement National party, described the interference law as “the signature of this text.” Nicole Dubré-Chirat, from the Ensemble pour la République party, supported this by drawing a parallel to the existing law against obstructive actions regarding abortion. She emphasized that the goal is not to punish disagreements but to address harmful actions.
However, concerns were raised about how this law could conflict with the freedom of healthcare providers and citizens to express their beliefs. Gérault Verny criticized the law as one that favors some freedoms over others, expressing fear that opposing views might become criminalized.
Supporters of the bill, like Olivier Falorni from Les Démocrates, argued that creating such a law aligns with human rights principles, insisting that nobody should impose their beliefs on others. Some deputies suggested that while the interference law might be acceptable, it should be balanced by a law addressing incitement to assisted dying.
The discussion highlighted a deep divide among lawmakers. Some amendments proposed to double the penalties for those who obstruct assisted dying, citing the need for consistent treatment of similar issues like abortion. These were passed despite some deputies warning that this could stifle open discussions among healthcare professionals.
Attempts were made to ensure that psychologists and supportive organizations wouldn’t be penalized under this new law. However, these ideas were rejected, leaving many deputies concerned about the potential for silencing important conversations about mental health and suicide prevention.
The push for a law against incitement to assisted dying was also met with resistance. Proponents argued that since assisted dying would be considered a right, there shouldn’t be a law against encouraging it. This led to debates about whether such a law would create a balance between individual freedom and the rights of others.
As the session continued, some deputies proposed changing the title of the law to reflect its content more clearly or to add qualifiers to the term “assisted dying.” These suggestions were ultimately dismissed.
After many hours of debate, the proposal moved forward, and lawmakers prepared for a final vote. Critics, including mental health professionals and activists, voiced strong opposition, warning that the law could have dangerous consequences for vulnerable individuals. As the legislative process continues, it remains to be seen how the Assembly will address these concerns and what the outcome will be for the proposed law.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Double peine pour le délit d’entrave, absence de délit d’incitation : les députés concluent l’examen de la proposition de loi relative au « droit à l’aide à mourir »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..