On Friday, the discussion about a new law concerning the “right to die” is speeding up. The lawmakers have only three days left before the final vote, which is scheduled for Tuesday, May 27.
During the nearly empty assembly, the lawmakers start by looking at Article 8, which deals with how a lethal substance will be prepared and given out. This is when Sandrine Dogor-Such from the National Rally brings up the conscience clause for pharmacists. This clause would allow pharmacists to refuse to participate in the process if it goes against their beliefs.
Patrick Hetzel from the Republican Right points out a problem: there are no clear safety protocols or tracking systems in place. This could lead to confusion and mistakes, and he worries that having pharmacies involved in giving out lethal substances could make the act seem more normal, which goes against what the law initially promised—only a few people would be affected.
Charles Sitzenstuhl from Together for the Republic asks again how many French people will be affected by this law in the coming years. He emphasizes that this is crucial information that hasn’t been provided yet.
Thibault Bazin, also from the Republican Right, reiterates the importance of the conscience clause, stating, “a law that aims for freedom for everyone must also include pharmacists.”
The general reporter Olivier Falorni from the Democrats tries to calm concerns, along with the Health Minister who mentions that rules about the protocol will be defined later. Regarding the conscience clause, she reminds everyone that it has been declared “unconstitutional” for giving out contraceptive pills. This raises questions about whether the issues are the same. Marie-Noëlle Battistel from the Socialists agrees with the Minister’s reference and adds examples of abortion pills as well.
Dominique Potier from the Socialists reacts strongly, pointing out that every time they try to set limits or reasonable adjustments to the text, they end up facing dead ends, like being stuck in a maze. He believes this shows that the path they are following is wrong. He quotes a significant figure from the left who warned that this whole discussion includes society as a whole. The message being sent, according to Potier, is that this law could lead to a serious abandonment of care and support, which would harm social solidarity.
Sandrine Rousseau from the Ecologist and Social party raises her voice against lawmakers who keep using terms like euthanasia and assisted suicide. She argues that these terms are part of the problem, citing a rise in suicide rates among young women. This prompts a formal complaint from Philippe Juvin from the Republican Right, leading to a break in the session.
Patrick Hetzel responds to Rousseau, saying that her aggressive speech indicates a controlling way of thinking. He insists that her approach is not suitable for such a serious debate and that she does not hold the exclusive right to define ethics in the assembly. In response, Rousseau shares a personal story about her mother’s suicide, explaining that this is why she supports assisted suicide.
Charles Sitzenstuhl also addresses Rousseau’s concerns about word choice, saying lawmakers shouldn’t be afraid to use specific terms. He points out that the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity, of which the general reporter is a member, openly uses terms like euthanasia and assisted suicide, suggesting that those terms are valid for the debate.
In the end, no amendments are accepted for Article 8, which is voted on and passed with 71 votes in favor and 45 against after an hour of discussion.
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Une loi se voulant de liberté pour tous doit aussi l’être pour les pharmaciens »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..