Category: Gènéthique informs you

Marie-Caroline Schürr, a young woman with a rare genetic disease, is speaking out against a proposed law that would allow assisted dying, which she believes threatens the lives of vulnerable people like herself. Having faced severe physical challenges and dependence due to her condition, she passionately argues for the right to live rather than to be considered a burden.

Marie-Caroline expresses her desire to live fully, despite her disabilities. She emphasizes that her life is filled with struggles, but she finds joy and meaning in it. Every day is a battle, and she fights for her autonomy, wanting to be seen and heard in society. She has accomplished a lot, including education and travel, proving that people with disabilities can lead fulfilling lives.

She raises a crucial point: proposing euthanasia as a solution implies that the lives of people with disabilities are less valuable. She challenges lawmakers to consider the message behind allowing assisted dying. Instead of simplifying life for society, it could lead to the elimination of those who are seen as burdens.

Marie-Caroline argues that society should support and care for vulnerable individuals rather than choose to end their lives. She recalls how, not long ago, Paralympic athletes were celebrated for their courage and strength, highlighting the hypocrisy of valuing their lives while considering euthanasia for those with disabilities.

She firmly states that her life is not a burden. The idea of euthanasia makes her feel guilty for simply existing. She believes that life, even with its challenges, is worth living and that suffering is not a reason to end a life. The real solution lies in providing support and resources for those who struggle, not in suggesting that their lives should be ended.

Marie-Caroline concludes by urging society to help people like her to live rather than die. She wants to be seen as a person worthy of life, not as a burden. She calls for compassion and understanding, asking for the courage to allow her and others to live fully.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : « ayez le courage de nous laisser vivre ! »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On May 24, members of the French parliament finished reviewing a new law proposal about the “right to assisted dying.” This proposal is set to be voted on on May 27, and it includes several important points.

The proposal now consists of 19 articles. Out of a total of 2,691 suggested changes, 89 amendments were accepted by the deputies.

One key change is that the law will be added to the Public Health Code. The first article changes the title of a section to “Information for users of the healthcare system, expression of their wishes, and end of life.” It states that everyone has the right to a dignified death, which includes the option for assisted dying. This means that assisted dying will be seen as a form of care.

Article 2 defines the “right to assisted dying,” but interestingly, the terms “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide” are not used. Instead, the lawmakers prefer to call it a “right.”

According to the proposal, euthanasia would be allowed in specific circumstances, such as when a person is unable to administer the lethal substance themselves due to physical incapacity. This could even include cases where stress affects a person’s ability to make decisions.

There are five main criteria to qualify for assisted dying. First, the person must be at least 18 years old. Second, they must be a French citizen or live in France regularly. Third, they need to have a serious and incurable illness that threatens their life, which is either advanced or terminal. Fourth, they must be experiencing unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be managed through treatment. Lastly, they must be able to express their wishes clearly and freely.

The law states that a request for assisted dying can be made orally or in writing, but it cannot be done over a video call. A doctor will evaluate whether the person is in a clear state of mind when making this request, but there are no specific guidelines on how to assess this.

The proposal includes a process where a doctor will consult with at least one other medical professional before making a decision. However, the final choice will be up to the doctor alone, and there is no option for family members to contest that decision.

If approved, a doctor must make their decision within 15 days, and the patient then has at least two days to reconsider. This means that someone could potentially receive assistance to die just four days after making their request.

Throughout the discussions, many protective measures for both patients and healthcare providers were rejected. For example, there are no restrictions on who can request assisted dying, including those with mental health issues or disabilities. Additionally, there is no requirement for psychological support before making such a request.

The proposal has raised concerns that once the right to assisted dying is established, it may be expanded in the future. Currently, minors are not included, but some lawmakers suggest that this could change later on.

As the vote approaches, there is a sense of uncertainty about how the deputies will respond to this significant and controversial proposal.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Droit à l’aide à mourir » : l’essentiel du texte sur lequel les députés vont se prononcer”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

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..

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..

The discussion around the “right to assisted dying” is getting intense among lawmakers. Recently, they have been examining Article 8 of a proposed law that allows people to seek assistance in dying. The debates are passionate, with many different opinions being shared.

One major point of contention is about how we use language when talking about this topic. Some politicians argue that there is a legal statement in the law that says if someone dies due to assisted dying, it’s considered a “natural death.” This has raised concerns among various lawmakers. Patrick Hetzel, from the Republican Right party, calls this statement a “minimal legal lie” and believes it needs to be removed. He, along with others like Christophe Bentz from the National Rally, wants to eliminate what they see as misleading wording.

Dominique Potier, a socialist, emphasizes the importance of language in this debate, stating that how we express things impacts our democracy. Other lawmakers worry that such wording can weaken the rule of law.

There are also concerns about how the process will work. Thibault Bazin points out that if a person who requested assisted dying wants to delay it, the health professional must stop the procedure and set a new date. He questions whether this might lead to pressure on the patient.

Despite these worries, Olivier Falorni, the general rapporteur, believes that the article and the law overall are fair. He insists that the legislation is balanced.

One amendment that Bazin successfully introduced states that euthanasia can only happen if the patient cannot physically administer the lethal substance themselves. Additionally, there’s now a focus on ensuring that the person receiving assistance does not feel pressured by those around them to go through with it or change their mind.

The discussions continue with various amendments being brought up. Some argue that if a patient feels uncertain or asks to postpone the procedure, this should be taken seriously. Many lawmakers are wary of any kind of pressure that might influence a patient’s decision.

Another heated topic is about the presence of a healthcare professional after a lethal dose is given. Some believe that a doctor doesn’t need to stay with the patient, while others argue that they should at least be nearby to help if needed.

A significant part of the discussion revolves around whether a death resulting from assisted dying should be classified as a natural death. Many lawmakers are opposed to this characterization, arguing it misrepresents the reality of the situation. They point out that a person who commits suicide is not considered to have died naturally. Some believe that it is crucial to accurately label assisted dying for what it is.

Throughout the debates, there are also conversations about the rights of patients who want to contest decisions made about their assisted dying requests. Initially, only the patient could challenge the decision, but there was pushback on this idea, leading to some amendments that allow for more support in such cases.

As the discussions progress, lawmakers are making decisions on various articles of the proposed law, with a mix of agreement and disagreement on how best to approach the sensitive issue of assisted dying. The conversations reflect broader societal debates on life, death, and personal choice, making it clear that this topic is far from settled.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “L’« aide à mourir », une « mort naturelle » : « la vérité du langage est un enjeu démocratique, un enjeu républicain »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

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..

Recently, lawmakers discussed a very serious topic: “assisted dying,” which is when a person decides to end their own life with help from a doctor. They paid attention to a few articles related to this procedure, but some parts of the law will be talked about more later.

One big concern was about the idea of “free and informed consent.” This means that a person should fully understand and agree to any medical decision affecting them. However, during the debates, some amendments that would allow people to make requests through advance directives (like a living will) or have a trusted person help them were turned down. Instead, they allowed doctors to inform a trusted person if the patient couldn’t understand their own situation. This made some lawmakers worry that the patient’s wishes were not being fully respected anymore.

Another topic was how long doctors have to make their decisions. The current law says they have 15 days to decide on a request for assisted dying. Some lawmakers argued that this isn’t enough time for such a serious choice and wanted to extend the waiting period. Others thought that even 48 hours was too long and wanted to get rid of it altogether. People expressed concerns that two days was too short for a decision that could not be reversed.

There were also discussions about whether there should be any prior checks or controls to ensure that everything is done safely and ethically. Some lawmakers believed that having more controls would help protect vulnerable people, but others argued that too much regulation could slow things down unnecessarily.

As the lawmakers moved on to another point, they talked about who would be present when someone chooses assisted dying. Some felt strongly that the person should have control over when and where it happens. Others worried about the potential trauma for loved ones witnessing such an act. They pointed out studies showing that people who assist in these situations can experience lasting emotional difficulties.

There were also discussions about the places where assisted dying could take place. Some lawmakers felt that hospitals and care homes should be places for healing, not for ending life, and that this could change how society views these institutions.

In the end, despite various arguments, the main articles were passed. The debate was intense and highlighted how complicated and sensitive this issue is, especially regarding the rights and feelings of individuals and their families. Lawmakers still have more discussions to come before a final vote on the proposal.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Pour une décision aussi grave, aussi lourde et totalement irréversible, oui, deux jours ça nous parait insensé »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Thursday morning, the chamber is nearly empty at 9 AM as the discussion resumes on the proposed law concerning the “right to assisted dying.” The debate starts with three amendments suggesting changes to the terminology, proposing to use terms like “scheduled death” or “active assistance to die” instead of “assisted dying.”

Although this discussion has happened many times before, this time, the general reporter, Olivier Falorni from the Democrats, takes a moment to respond, going over the semantic analysis already performed, especially concerning the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide. Philippe Juvin from the Republican Right expresses frustration, saying, “We agreed on 1 minute each, but you spoke for 5 minutes, Olivier Falorni. You’re just waiting for allies to ensure these amendments aren’t passed.” He is joined by Charles Sitzenstuhl from Together for the Republic, who also expresses disappointment about how the day is starting. Ultimately, the amendments are rejected.

Some deputies are concerned about the lack of real guarantees that a person’s wish for assisted dying is “free and informed.” Thibault Bazin from the Republican Right suggests an amendment that would deny access to assisted dying for people who feel a “mixed sense of uselessness and non-existence,” arguing that society’s view on these individuals makes them feel unworthy, which they shouldn’t be. His colleague, Patrick Hetzel, supports this view, referencing a statement from Professor Emmanuel Hirsch, who warns that we must accept the human, social, and ethical consequences of a law that supports giving death. He emphasizes the importance of “protection and brotherhood.”

However, this amendment isn’t widely supported. Deputies Michel Lauzzana from Together for the Republic and Stéphane Delautrette from the Socialists criticize it. Lauzzana argues that feelings of unworthiness are personal, while Delautrette insists that “we can’t protect someone against their will.” The reporter, Laurent Panifous, reassures that feelings of personal degradation will never be enough to access this option. Both the amendment and another proposal to consult a psychiatrist when there are doubts about the person’s understanding are rejected.

Even the government’s amendment, which aimed to ensure that if there were serious doubts about a person’s judgment, a doctor would consult a psychiatrist or neurologist, is rejected. Olivier Falorni deemed it “balanced.” Juvin insists on the need for mandatory psychiatric consultations, while Hetzel believes that a psychiatrist’s and neurologist’s opinions should be required for the doctor. Sandrine Rousseau from the Ecologist and Social party argues that psychiatrists look for mental disorders, not for someone’s ability to make decisions. She questions whether a mental illness automatically affects a person’s judgment.

Another key point raised by Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé from Horizons and Independents is that both the patient and doctor should explore all alternatives before considering assisted dying. Justine Gruet from the Republican Right suggests making the process of assisted dying more judicially regulated to ensure that the decision is free and informed. Cyrille Isaac-Sibille from the Democrats frequently asks why, in a law about society, the responsibility and consequences are left solely to the doctor. He points out that in organ donation cases, a judge is involved, but for this law, the society seems completely absent, as the doctors are left to decide.

Sandrine Rousseau responds to this by stating that the amendments assume assisted dying only happens when treatment fails. However, in advanced or terminal stages, it is a personal choice. Gruet questions whether it should be an individual’s freedom or a doctor’s decision. The Health Minister ultimately clarifies that it is the patient’s decision with medical advice.

An amendment from Bazin to gather opinions from a patient’s relatives is also rejected.

The debate then shifts to the collegial process outlined in the law, which many deputies believe is inadequate. Ten amendments aimed at clarifying this process are rejected. Dominique Potier from the Socialists warns that it’s problematic for a doctor to be the expert, decision-maker, and executor all at once.

Amendments proposed by Frédéric Valletoux, the president of the social affairs commission, and Laurent Panifous are favored. They clarify that the collegial process is only a procedure and not a decision-making body; the final decision is still up to the doctor. Danielle Simonnet from the Ecologist and Social party reminds everyone that while there is a collegial discussion, the final choice is up to the referring doctor.

Most stricter amendments to make the process more binding are rejected, except for those from Bazin and Juvin, which are adopted unanimously. These amendments state that the process needs to involve a team of professionals, including at least one specialist and a healthcare assistant. Meetings should occur in person whenever possible, and while the doctor can involve the patient’s trusted person if desired, the final decision rests solely with the doctor, who must document their reasoning.

Philippe Juvin labels the changes as “cosmetic,” noting that doctors were the first to call for actual collegiality.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : une révision « cosmétique » de la collégialité”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

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..

Some psychologists and psychiatrists are upset about a big contradiction in society: how can we try to stop people from committing suicide while also saying that, in some cases, it’s okay to help someone die? Over 600 mental health professionals signed a statement against a proposed law that would allow assisted dying, arguing that this creates a confusing and harmful message. They believe it is not right to say that some lives are not worth living.

They ask, “How can we help our patients who are struggling with thoughts of death if we also suggest that for some, dying is a solution?” Allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide sends a very dangerous message: that some lives don’t deserve to be lived. This could push vulnerable people who are already struggling closer to the edge.

These mental health professionals work hard to give hope to those who feel hopeless. They know that emotional suffering can happen to anyone, especially to people who are elderly, isolated, or sick. They warn that by allowing doctors to help someone die, society is subtly telling all vulnerable people that dying might be an option worth considering.

They argue that supporting the idea of assisted dying creates a dangerous distinction between types of suffering—some that deserve support and others that justify ending a life. This could have serious consequences for suicide prevention. If society implies that death is a valid option, how can we convince desperate people to keep fighting for their lives?

The professionals emphasize that this law doesn’t give rights to vulnerable people; instead, it adds pressure on them. It makes them feel like a burden and takes away the chance for meaningful support and companionship, which can lead to new possibilities.

Countries that have legalized assisted dying, such as the Netherlands and Oregon, have seen increases in suicide rates. In the Netherlands, non-assisted suicides rose by 28% between 2010 and 2021, while other European countries without legalized euthanasia saw their suicide rates go down. This suggests that legalizing assisted suicide can normalize the idea of suicide.

These psychologists and psychiatrists refuse to stand by and watch as society gives up on helping those in need. They believe that allowing death as a response to emotional suffering betrays their mission to care for patients. They see it as encouraging suicide and undermining their efforts and values. Instead of showing compassion, they believe this approach is a surrender.

They firmly state that they will always support those who are suffering and will not allow society to become a tool for those in despair. They believe that the true measure of progress in society is how well it protects and supports its most vulnerable members, not how easily it allows for their disappearance. They want to stay true to values like solidarity, humanity, and care.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Droit à l’aide à mourir » : « c’est une capitulation, pas une compassion »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On May 19, discussions in the French National Assembly highlighted deep divisions regarding access to assisted dying. The debates focused on important bioethical issues, including nationality, the timing of a life-threatening prognosis, and how to interpret the medical criteria for accessing this type of assistance. These discussions revealed a tension between patient autonomy and collective responsibility.

One major topic was the requirement for individuals to be French nationals or to have stable residency in France. Some amendments that aimed to remove this requirement were rejected. The Minister of Health, Catherine Vautrin, stated that the goal is not to attract people coming to France solely for this purpose, as she opposed the idea of “death tourism.” Some deputies argued that this concern was unfounded, while others stressed the importance of being grounded in the country.

Another critical point of debate was the medical criteria that would allow someone to receive assistance in dying. The text proposed that assistance could be provided to individuals with a “serious and incurable condition” whose life is at risk, especially in advanced or terminal stages. This broad definition led to attempts to narrow it down. Some amendments sought to introduce a “short-term” concept or remove certain wording that could be seen as vague. Critics expressed concerns that the current wording could potentially include non-terminal neurodegenerative diseases.

There was also a discussion about the concept of a life-threatening prognosis itself. Some politicians proposed to eliminate this requirement, arguing that only the patient can truly assess their suffering. However, many voices emphasized the protective role of this requirement, insisting that society’s role should be to alleviate suffering rather than to end lives.

The morning’s debates showcased a highly charged ethical environment. On one side, there was a clear political desire to secure access to assisted dying, while on the other, there was growing concern about the potential loosening of safeguards. Advocates of assisted dying emphasized patient freedom and dignity, while opponents warned that it could lead to a troubling shift in how society responds to suffering—moving from healing to ending life.

How much can we regulate death without causing a fundamental change in our values? The unclear criteria, the subjective nature of suffering, and the potential pressure on vulnerable individuals challenge the promise of a law that aims to be both humane and controlled.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Pronostic vital, nationalité, souffrance : les fondations fragiles d’un droit létal”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On May 16, a discussion about a proposed law concerning end-of-life care began right after another discussion about palliative care. This new proposal is about the right to assisted dying, which is a controversial topic. Only about 130 of the 577 deputies in the Assembly were present, raising concerns about the seriousness of the debate.

Charles Sitzenstuhl, a deputy, started the session by stressing the importance of ensuring that all opinions are heard during such a crucial debate. He expressed worry that the rules for the discussions would not allow for enough time to cover everyone’s views. The president of the session, Jérémie Iordanoff, reassured him by saying that there are 2,600 amendments to discuss, so there would be plenty of opportunities to speak, although he would limit the number of speakers per amendment to one for and one against.

Yannick Monnet disagreed with this limit, claiming that the topic was too important to restrict discussions. He and others questioned the urgency of passing this law, especially since palliative care is not yet widely available in France.

The debate quickly revealed strong opposing views. Christophe Bentz from the National Rally called the proposal a significant ethical and social break, arguing that it risks society’s values. He advocated for improving palliative care as the better alternative. Philippe Juvin from the Republicans asked what kind of society we want to create: one focused on compassion through care, or one where we provide death on request.

Dominique Potier from the Socialists expressed his opposition by emphasizing that life should be preserved and that the law’s idea of “freedom” was misleading when many people lack access to proper care. He feared the most vulnerable people might suffer the most if this law passed.

Some supporters of the proposal, like Hadrien Clouet from the left, argued that forcing someone to suffer is akin to torture and that the proposal represents a step towards freedom. He, along with others, believed the moment had come for this law, claiming that many French people want it.

As discussions progressed, deputies examined the details of the proposal. Some raised concerns about the first article, questioning whether ending a life could be considered a form of healthcare. Others argued that allowing assisted dying could undermine the core mission of healthcare professionals, which is to save lives.

Despite the disagreements, a majority of deputies voted to accept the first article of the proposal, which would include assisted dying in public health codes.

As the debate continued, discussions shifted to the terminology used in the proposal. Some argued that “assisted dying” was a euphemism, and that using terms like “euthanasia” or “assisted suicide” would provide clarity. Others insisted that the language should remain as it is to avoid negative connotations associated with certain terms.

The debates are ongoing, with more discussions scheduled. While some amendments have been proposed, none have yet been accepted. The topic remains highly divisive, reflecting deep societal questions about life, death, and the role of healthcare.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : le poids des mots, le choc des positions”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Saturday night, after voting on Article 3, the lawmakers began discussing the criteria for accessing “assisted dying.”

One major point of debate was about the language used. Some representatives, like Christophe Bentz from the National Rally, argued that how things are worded matters. Justine Gruet from the Republican Right suggested that since euthanasia has become rare again, it would be better to call it assisted suicide. However, these suggestions were rejected, just like earlier amendments.

As the discussion moved to Article 4, Annie Vidal proposed an amendment to clarify that the term “assisted dying” should include “active” assistance, saying that the current wording is vague. The general rapporteur, Olivier Falorni, sarcastically noted that he would keep track of how many semantic amendments he would oppose, highlighting the repeated nature of such discussions.

Another issue raised was the lack of clear data about how many people might seek assisted dying if the law passes. Charles Sitzenstuhl asked the health minister, Catherine Vautrin, for statistics on this but did not receive an answer.

An amendment by Océane Godard aimed to ensure patients receive clear information about assisted dying. She also promised to support another amendment that would make it a crime to encourage someone to seek assisted dying. However, this proposal had already been rejected by a committee.

As the lawmakers continued through Article 4, there were increasing calls for careful consideration of the criteria for assisted dying. Gaëtan Dussausaye, who supports assisted dying, warned that changing certain criteria could affect how many lawmakers would vote in favor of the bill.

Hadrien Clouet argued that the criteria are already too strict and may become even stricter based on recent medical advice. In contrast, Patrick Hetzel pointed out major flaws in the criteria, saying they could lead to patients with treatable mental illnesses being eligible for assisted dying, which goes against suicide prevention ethics.

There were discussions about amendments to remove Article 4 entirely, with Dominique Potier highlighting growing concerns over protecting vulnerable people. Some lawmakers warned that this legislation could lead to future expansions of assisted dying laws, including for minors, which they found alarming.

Vincent Trébuchet emphasized that countries with strict initial criteria often expanded them over time, changing societal views. Christophe Bentz added that once the laws are loosened, they are unlikely to be tightened again.

As the debates continued, Philippe Juvin raised concerns about patients who rely on treatments like dialysis, questioning how they would fit into the criteria for assisted dying. Vautrin defended the proposal by saying it only applied to those without treatment options, but Juvin argued that having treatment doesn’t mean a patient is cured.

The discussions became heated, with Justine Gruet expressing frustration over her colleagues’ intolerance to opposing views.

Several amendments were proposed to ensure that a person could only access assisted dying if they had guaranteed access to appropriate treatments and palliative care. Philippe Juvin argued that for consent to be genuinely free, there should be no pressure, including lack of access to necessary treatment.

Lastly, there were discussions about age limits for accessing assisted dying. Elise Leboucher proposed allowing emancipated minors to seek assisted dying, which was rejected. Thibault Bazin reminded the assembly that no country has allowed assisted dying for minors right away and suggested that such discussions would come later.

Ultimately, despite many proposed changes, the amendments were rejected. The session ended with plans to continue discussing the bill the following Monday.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Les députés examinent les critères d’accès à l’« aide à mourir » : « Ce qui m’inquiète, c’est que depuis le début de nos débats vous n’avez aucune incertitude »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Saturday, lawmakers continued discussing a proposed law about the “right to assisted dying.” They are trying to finish reviewing it before a final vote set for May 27.

During the debate, a lot of time was spent discussing the phrase “assisted dying.” Some politicians pointed out that this term is a mix of positive and negative words, which can create confusion about what it really means. For example, Christophe Bentz from the National Rally said it gives a falsely positive view of giving someone a lethal substance to help them die. Philippe Juvin from the Republican Party added that “assisted dying” is already part of palliative care, where doctors help patients until they pass away.

Some lawmakers tried to change the terminology to include the word “active” to make it clearer, but those changes were rejected.

Charles Rodwell from the same party warned that calling this a “right” could lead to broader interpretations in the future. The minister, Catherine Vautrin, disagreed with the idea of labeling it a right, stating it should be viewed as a freedom with strict medical conditions.

There was also a proposal to place the topic of “assisted dying” in a separate section of health laws to avoid confusion with medical care, but that idea was rejected too.

As the discussions continued, lawmakers debated whether euthanasia should be considered an exception rather than a choice made by the patient. The government proposed that euthanasia should only be done if a person can’t physically do it themselves, emphasizing that the final decision should belong to the individual. Some lawmakers worried that a patient might not be able to make that choice due to stress or anxiety.

Various amendments suggested by other parties aimed to change the rules around who can perform euthanasia and under what conditions, but many of these suggestions were turned down.

There was a proposal to allow a close friend to administer the lethal substance, which was also rejected. Another amendment suggested allowing a person chosen by the patient to be involved, but this too faced criticism and was not passed.

One lawmaker, Patrick Hetzel, wanted to remove a specific part of the law that stated assisted dying would be considered legal under the criminal code, raising questions about how to differentiate it from other legal issues like assisted suicide. However, amendments to clarify this were also rejected.

As the discussion continued, many lawmakers brought up advance directives, which would allow people to express their wishes about assisted dying in the future. While some agreed to let this topic be debated later, others pushed to ensure there were safeguards in place to avoid misunderstandings.

In the end, the article establishing the “right to assisted dying” was approved, and discussions moved on to another part of the law that would integrate it into health regulations.

One lawmaker expressed concern that this law could change how healthcare professionals view their roles, emphasizing that it’s not just about medical care but about societal choices. They also brought up the fact that many people die without proper palliative care, raising the question of whether truly having a choice exists when faced with suffering.

The debates revealed a deep divide on the issue, with some arguing that achieving a dignified death is an important part of life. Others warned against changing long-standing ethical standards in healthcare. Ultimately, the law passed, but it left many questions about the implications for society and healthcare practices in the future.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Les députés adoptent le « droit à l’aide à mourir » : une « trajectoire vertigineuse »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On May 14, a government decree announced new appointments to the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Life Sciences and Health, also known as CCNE.

Alain Claeys, a former member of parliament, had his term extended at the suggestion of the Minister of Social Affairs. Fabrice Gzil, an associate professor of philosophy and ethics at Paris-Saclay University and co-director of the Ile-de-France Ethic Space, also had his term renewed on the recommendation of the Family Minister.

Biologist Philippe Kourilsky, an emeritus professor at the Collège de France, and sociologist Emmanuel Didier had their terms renewed as well.

New Appointments

Gilles Raoul-Cormeil, a private law and criminal sciences professor at the University of Caen, was appointed based on a proposal from the Minister of Justice. He oversees a master’s program focused on protecting vulnerable individuals. Ruddy Valentino, a pulmonologist and intensivist, and director of the regional ethics reflection space in Martinique, was chosen by the Minister of Education. Clémence Thébaut, an associate professor in Health Economics, was selected by the Minister of Labor, while Dr. Marie-Charlotte Boüesseau from the World Health Organization was appointed by the Minister of Communication. Monique Cavalier, a former hospital director and former director of regional health agencies, was selected by the Minister for Women’s Rights.

Marc Lecuit was appointed based on a proposal from the director of the Pasteur Institute, and Patricia Fauque, a specialist in reproductive biology, was nominated by the Conference of University Presidents. The Inserm selected environmental epidemiologist Remy Slama and oncologist Jean-Emmanuel Bibault. The CNRS proposed Sylvie Odent, head of clinical genetics at Rennes University Hospital.

An Important Mission Ahead

From the associations, Yvanie Caillé, founder of the Renaloo association, had her term renewed, along with two new appointments: Jean Wils and Jacques Buisson.

In addition to the members appointed by decree, the CCNE includes personalities from various philosophical and spiritual backgrounds selected by the President of the Republic. This includes Rachid Benzzine, an Islamic scholar and political scientist, and journalist Isabelle de Gaulmyn. The first president of the Court of Cassation also reappointed Anne Caron-Déglise.

The CCNE is responsible for organizing the upcoming State General Meetings on bioethics, which are set to take place in 2026.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “CCNE : les nominations publiées au Journal officiel”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

As discussions about a new law to allow “assisted dying” begin in the French National Assembly, 575 legal experts are expressing their concerns about the injustice and potential dangers of this proposal.

For several years, many people have been deeply affected by the suffering of those facing incurable diseases or difficult end-of-life situations. It’s hard not to feel empathy for those who are suffering, whether they’re friends or strangers. In these painful circumstances, the government has two options: they can provide the medical resources needed to ease suffering through palliative care, or they can allow for these troubled lives to be ended through assisted dying, which can be requested by the person themselves (assisted suicide) or carried out by a healthcare professional (euthanasia). While France is known for its palliative care, there is currently a severe lack of resources available to everyone who needs them.

Recently, a new law proposing “assisted dying” was discussed and approved in a committee within the National Assembly. This law will soon be debated in a larger assembly before being sent to the Senate. Legal professionals, including professors, judges, and lawyers, are warning the public about the injustice of labeling death as a form of care and the serious consequences this could have for a society that is already facing many challenges.

The principle behind the assisted dying law represents a significant shift in societal values. This law would make assisted suicide and euthanasia a legal right. The role of doctors and nurses is to heal, support, and relieve suffering—not to cause death. This change could undermine the unique value of each human life and alter how society views medical professionals. Allowing for the administration of death would fundamentally change the medical profession’s purpose.

Moreover, legalizing assisted suicide raises questions about what it means to help someone in danger. If the choice to die becomes central, why should we continue to oppose suicide in general? What would happen to laws against encouraging suicide? Would people be seen as wrong for trying to save someone who wants to end their life? This creates a huge dilemma, and if the government endorses this choice, it could affect us all.

The lawmakers seem to be aware of the problems with their proposal, as they hardly use the word “death.” Instead, they create terms that sound less harsh, like calling a death from assisted dying a “natural death.” This language manipulation is concerning. Death is being treated as just another healthcare option.

Currently, doctors would not be forced to perform euthanasia; they have the right to refuse on moral grounds. However, they would still be required to refer the patient to another doctor who does perform euthanasia. Unfortunately, pharmacists do not have the same right to refuse, meaning they could be compelled to prepare lethal substances for patients. This removes an essential freedom that should be available in a democratic society.

The law is also quite vague about the rules for checking if euthanasia or assisted suicide was done properly. For example, one part of the law states that a patient’s request for assistance in dying can only be challenged by the patient themselves, which raises the question of how a deceased person could go to court. There are no real safeguards to protect against misuse.

Legal experts are particularly worried about harsh penalties included in the law, such as a year in prison and a fine for those who try to stop or inform others about assisted dying. This could mean that expressing concern about the medical consequences of assisted dying might be considered a crime. Moreover, the law does not include penalties for those who encourage assisted suicide, showing a biased approach to free speech.

This proposal is part of a broader trend, as some neighboring countries have already legalized euthanasia. In Belgium, for instance, the law has extended to minors since 2014, which has led to an increase in cases involving people suffering from depression. The French proposal is following a similar path, as it includes provisions for those with “psychological suffering.”

If this “right” to assisted dying is accepted, it raises alarming questions about the value of lives deemed unproductive or too costly. This shift could create a serious injustice that damages societal cohesion and the dignity of individuals. Our laws should not imply that life has relative value since it is the foundation for all other rights.

As legal professionals, we have a responsibility to alert the public about the dangers of this “assisted dying” proposal. Instead of opening the door to such drastic measures, we should focus on helping doctors uphold their Hippocratic oath: “I will never intentionally cause harm.” We need to provide them with the resources to heal and alleviate suffering, creating a truly compassionate society that cares for its most vulnerable members.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Ouverture du « droit à l’aide à mourir » : une « profonde et irréparable injustice »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Wednesday, the discussion about the proposed law on palliative care continued without major issues in the early stages. The focus was on articles related to long-term planning and funding evaluation for palliative care. There were only a few amendments made. The National Rally group managed to include a goal for pediatric palliative care, while the Socialist and Democratic Left groups got their amendments approved to ensure public funding for volunteer organizations. Additionally, the Republicans succeeded in adding an amendment that requires a clear evaluation of how accessible palliative care is.

Things heated up when they reached article 8, where Christophe Marion suggested that the title of the specialized diploma in palliative medicine should also include “assisted dying.” This sparked controversy, as the medical community had already raised concerns about including such practices in medical training. Some representatives voiced the need to keep discussions about assisted dying separate from palliative care.

Charles Sitzenstuhl stressed the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the two topics. He expressed frustration, asking why some politicians wanted to mix these discussions, which could undermine their efforts to reach a consensus. Justine Gruet argued that it didn’t make sense to include training for something currently illegal in a law about palliative care. Amendments to remove mentions of “assisted dying” from medical training received support, creating confusion since they contradicted the earlier amendment which had been adopted.

Yannick Monnet pointed out that the term “assisted dying” was being used too casually compared to “euthanasia,” suggesting that this could create misunderstandings about the purpose of palliative care. Patrick Hetzel warned that mixing these discussions could harm the overall effort to find a national consensus on palliative care.

After a call for a second review of the amendment by Christophe Marion, which would only happen later if the government agreed, the deputies continued their discussion. The Republicans decided not to vote for article 8 as a precaution, signaling their preference to wait for further clarification. Eventually, article 8 was voted on, but it failed with more deputies opposing it than supporting it.

Efforts to regain consensus continued, leading to a proposal to remove a newly added article that aimed to introduce life and death education in schools, which had been added in committee. The aim was to refocus on palliative care. This removal was overwhelmingly supported by the deputies.

Before the session ended, article 9 was adopted, with the president of the session humorously commenting on the speed of their work, encouraging them to keep the discussions going in the next session.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Prenez vos responsabilités ! » : le consensus sur les soins palliatifs préservé dans la douleur”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

In a recent statement, the Conference of Deans of Medicine (CDD) expressed strong opposition to making training in “active assistance in dying” mandatory in medical studies. This proposal is part of a bill related to palliative care. The CDD believes that helping someone to die is not a part of a doctor’s responsibilities.

Instead, the CDD supports improving training for doctors and healthcare professionals in palliative care, which focuses on providing compassionate support to patients who are nearing the end of their lives. They emphasize the importance of ensuring that everyone has access to palliative care based on their needs.

Additionally, the CDD advocates for enhancing education on healthcare ethics. This approach aims to encourage critical thinking among future healthcare professionals about the complex issues surrounding the end of life, enabling them to support patients with compassion and understanding during their final moments.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Cette pratique ne fait pas partie des missions d’un médecin » : la conférence des Doyennes et des Doyens de Médecine opposée à l’obligation d’une formation sur l’« aide à mourir »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On May 12, 2025, the French National Assembly began discussing two important proposals: one focuses on improving palliative care, while the other introduces a “right to assisted dying.” The difference between these two proposals is significant, with one aiming to relieve suffering and the other allowing for the possibility of ending a person’s life.

During the discussions, various representatives spoke about their hopes for balance and respect for public opinion. Surveys show that many French people support assisted dying, but there is a deep divide on this issue. The palliative care proposal seeks to enhance support for those at the end of life, whereas the assisted dying proposal allows for the administration of lethal substances, which raises ethical concerns.

Olivier Falorni, who supports the assisted dying proposal, began his speech by celebrating life but argued that sometimes living can be worse than death. His strong emotional language raises the question of how much emotion should influence legal decisions. He views assisted dying as a necessary option for people suffering greatly, but combining it with palliative care raises concerns about whether patients will be adequately cared for if they are also given the option to die.

The Minister of Health, Catherine Vautrin, supports improving access to palliative care and wants to ensure that people have the option to choose their end-of-life care. However, she believes the current laws are lacking and suggests that deep sedation could lead to death, which some people disagree with. Vautrin emphasized that assisted dying should only be available to those with a serious, incurable illness and who can make their own decisions.

There are differing opinions among politicians about these proposals. Some think Falorni’s plan is balanced, while others fear it might lead to negative consequences. Some representatives argue that offering assisted dying could lead to vulnerable people feeling pressured to choose death over care. They worry that it could create a society where those who are sick or disabled feel abandoned.

Critics of the assisted dying proposal argue that it represents a dangerous shift in ethics, suggesting that it might offer death instead of proper care. They advocate for improved palliative care as a more humane approach. Some politicians call for a clear distinction between palliative care and assisted dying, emphasizing that the former respects the dignity of patients.

As the discussions continue, the main question remains: what kind of society do we want to create? The debate isn’t just about laws; it’s about how we value life and care for those who are vulnerable. The assembly will be examining numerous amendments related to this topic in the coming weeks, and the outcomes could have a significant impact on the future of end-of-life care in France.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : les débats commencent dans l’hémicycle et déjà des voix pour inscrire l’euthanasie dans la Constitution”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

As the French National Assembly prepares to discuss a law on the right to die, Dr. Jean Gauthier, a cardiologist and researcher, is raising concerns about the lack of palliative care. He believes that strengthening family support for patients at the end of life is essential. He urges caregivers and families not to give in to what he calls the “culture of waste.”

Dr. Gauthier has faced the issue of euthanasia personally. His first experience was with his father, who requested it. He reluctantly agreed to a passive euthanasia, using high doses of morphine. He later regretted this decision, feeling that he might have taken away precious time from his father. In contrast, he did not agree to his mother’s request when she was suffering from cancer. He believes that as the law stands, doctors will have to make these tough decisions alone, which he finds worrying, especially when he thinks that improving palliative care could reduce requests for assisted dying.

In France, the availability of palliative care is concerning. Dr. Gauthier points out that there are many more people who need care than there are resources available. While about 150,000 people currently receive palliative care, estimates suggest that in the future, around 1 million will need it. This means more people will require help at home, and families will have to step in more. He emphasizes that families need to get closer and work together, as the traditional family structure is changing, with relatives often living far apart.

He also notes that families dealing with disabilities often feel unprepared and overwhelmed. Single-parent families struggle significantly, and even larger families may not be well-organized. The government should focus on providing more support, not just laws. He believes that families should receive financial help to support their loved ones, especially those who are at the end of their lives.

Dr. Gauthier has seen many patients come back to the hospital repeatedly, and he has witnessed how families react. Sometimes, families unite to care for the patient; other times, they become distant and disheartened. He has observed that the desire for euthanasia often correlates with a lack of family support. Patients sometimes feel like a burden and may even ask to stop treatment to avoid being a hassle for their loved ones.

To change the mindset surrounding this “culture of waste,” Dr. Gauthier stresses the importance of families preparing for the end of life together. They should discuss how they can support one another and avoid falling into gender discrimination in their roles. Families need to work as a team, integrating help from outside caregivers and volunteers. He points out that nowadays, people often interact more on social media than with their actual family. He argues that the solution is not simply to pass laws but to focus on healing family connections, which are at the heart of the matter for many people.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : « c’est le renforcement du noyau familial auprès des patients qui va être la solution »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..