Last week, lawmakers quickly approved a new law about “assisted dying,” and this week they are back to discussing end-of-life issues in a social affairs committee. They originally planned to spend fifteen hours talking about a proposal to ensure everyone has equal access to palliative care, but they only spent a little over five hours going through 236 suggested changes, adopting 57 of them, mostly minor edits.
On Monday, the mood in the committee was calm, with only a few members present. This could be because the topic is less controversial, or maybe people just aren’t interested.
Annie Vidal, the person in charge of the proposal, wants to keep the topics of palliative care and assisted dying separate. She also wants to consider improvements suggested by the Senate. Sandrine Dogor-Such proposed an amendment stating that palliative care should be the main response to suffering from serious illness and cannot be replaced or delayed by anything else related to end-of-life issues. Annie Vidal thinks this is already covered in the text, but Christophe Bentz disagrees, fearing that the mention of support might lead to assisted dying being accepted. The amendment was ultimately rejected.
Several other amendments were proposed to remove a part of the text that states palliative care does not aim to speed up or delay death. Some committee members found this part disconnected from reality, but Annie Vidal defended it, saying it aligns with the World Health Organization’s definition and helps differentiate palliative care from assisted dying. The vote was very close, leading to a second vote, but the amendments were rejected again.
Articles 1 and 2 of the proposal were adopted, while Article 3 was removed.
The debate about whether there should be a guaranteed right to palliative care came up again. Sandrine Dogor-Such suggested an amendment to establish such a right, but Annie Vidal argued that it wouldn’t significantly improve access to palliative care and the amendment was withdrawn. The issue resurfaced later, but again, Annie Vidal opposed it, saying it wouldn’t be practical.
Another amendment was brought up by Sebastien Peytavie and Fanny Dombre Coste, but again, there were concerns about the implications of a “right to die.” They ended up rejecting these amendments as well.
As they continued reviewing the proposal, they reached Article 10 about creating support houses for patients. Christophe Bentz expressed concerns about what actions would be allowed in these houses, particularly regarding assisted dying. The committee decided to allow all health actors, whether for profit or not, to participate in palliative care, with some regulations in place. However, disagreements remained too significant, and Article 10 was ultimately rejected.
The discussion moved on to Article 15, which addressed the “personalized support plan.” Karen Erodi argued that people who are legally protected should be able to write their advance directives without needing approval from a judge or family. She believed that denying this right goes against autonomy and international agreements on the rights of disabled individuals. Sebastien Peytavie supported her, emphasizing that even those who need protection can express their wishes regarding pain and end-of-life care. Erodi’s amendment was adopted.
The review wrapped up quickly, with a few final measures allowing family members to be involved in decision-making processes. Before finishing, lawmakers discussed the title of the proposal. Thibault Bazin pointed out that while strong goals for palliative care are important, the proposal alone won’t solve the underlying issues of funding and organization. He noted that there might be budget problems related to social security.
By 8:30 PM, the proposal was adopted by the committee, and they left for dinner. The discussions will continue on February 16, focusing on the palliative care proposal. Will they finally make it a priority?
This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Soins palliatifs : un examen éclair en commission au détriment des personnes vulnérables”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..