Last news

On March 17, a court in Barcelona decided against a father who was trying to stop his 24-year-old daughter, who is paralyzed, from choosing euthanasia. The family is not happy with this decision and hopes that higher courts will change it. The father’s lawyer, José María Fernández, explains more about the case and its implications.

Is there still a chance that the euthanasia request could be denied?

José María Fernández: Yes, the case will be appealed to the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, and it might even be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Spain. We believe our arguments are strong and that there’s a real chance that the higher courts could change the decision.

Why can’t the family oppose the decision, even if the patient is suffering in multiple ways?

JMF: The court believes that the decision belongs solely to the patient, which goes against what the Constitutional Court says about having the right to contest administrative actions in court. Additionally, we think the patient has obsessive-compulsive disorder and suicidal thoughts, which may influence her choice.

What does this case say about how society views the moral relief of people who are suffering?

JMF: The message is that instead of providing support for people with mental illnesses, society seems to prefer euthanasia. This is a harsh message with serious long-term consequences.

What do the parents think, and what arguments do you use to support them?

JMF: The parents want their daughter to live. She is very young at 24 and has many years ahead of her. We argue that she isn’t experiencing severe suffering, so the legal conditions for euthanasia aren’t met, and her consent is affected by her mental health issues. We also believe there were serious legal mistakes in the process.

Is the human desire for more personal choice clashing with our need for support from others?

JMF: We live in a time where individual will is emphasized, often to the detriment of the individual. Humans are social beings; we all need each other. In this case, the patient has a good level of autonomy; she can stand up, climb stairs, and do many things by herself.

What role does vulnerability have in society with such laws in place?

JMF: It’s crucial to have a law for palliative care that would provide an alternative to euthanasia for chronic patients.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Nous vivons un moment d’exacerbation de la volonté de l’individu, souvent au détriment de cet individu même »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

Recently, a major decision was made regarding a proposed law called the “Right to Die” in France. This law, which was discussed by the National Assembly’s Social Affairs Committee, aims to address how people can choose to end their lives in certain situations. However, the discussions raised many ethical concerns and questions about its impact on society.

One of the main points of contention was Article 17, which introduces a new offense called “obstructing assistance to die.” Some lawmakers expressed concern about whether trying to prevent someone from committing suicide could lead to criminal charges. For example, one deputy questioned if they could be punished for saving someone who was trying to jump out of a window. This highlights a critical ethical dilemma about the difference between helping someone and being seen as interfering.

Furthermore, some proposed amendments that would have balanced the law by creating penalties for encouraging assisted dying were rejected. While some members believed it was essential to find a fair middle ground, others argued that the law is already properly balanced, similar to older laws regarding abortion, which do not include penalties for encouragement but do have penalties for obstruction.

Another significant issue is the lack of focus on palliative care, which helps people in severe pain or at the end of their lives. Several suggestions were made to link the implementation of the new law to the availability of palliative care, but these were dismissed. This raises concerns that some individuals might feel they have no choice but to seek assisted dying due to a lack of proper care.

The law also underwent changes in its title, moving away from terms like “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide,” which some lawmakers found too explicit. Instead, it was labeled as the “Right to Assistance in Dying.”

Overall, this proposed law marks a significant shift in how assisted dying is viewed in France. Critics argue that it lacks necessary safeguards for vulnerable individuals and does not ensure access to essential health care. Despite the ongoing debates, the committee ultimately voted in favor of the proposal, with 28 votes for and 15 against. As this law moves forward, it is seen as a pivotal moment, comparable to the abolition of the death penalty in France.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “La Commission adopte une proposition de loi « relative au droit à mourir » sans contrepoids réel”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On May 2nd, a meeting of the Social Affairs Committee sparked a heated discussion about a topic that often gets overlooked in end-of-life debates: the cost of medically assisted death.

Amendment 996, proposed by Philippe Juvin, suggested that the committee should include a report on the financial aspects of this issue, including both the costs involved and the savings for the healthcare system. Some members saw this idea as taboo and quickly rejected it. Ségolène Amiot called it “shocking,” while Yannick Monnet labeled it “cynical.” Sandrine Rousseau even said it crossed a “red line,” arguing that bringing economics into the conversation was inappropriate.

However, others defended the importance of discussing the financial implications. Christophe Bentz pointed out that this was simply about getting information. Patrick Hetzel noted that the last years of life are often the most expensive, and ignoring this fact means missing a broader perspective. Juvin mentioned that in Canada, the option for assisted dying reportedly saved around $80 million in healthcare costs.

The amendment was dismissed by Olivier Falorni, the general reporter, who found it offensive. He mentioned that some colleagues were upset by the implication that their support for the bill was based on economic reasons. Nicolas Turquois expressed strong disapproval, stating that it was indecent to suggest that financial motives influenced their votes.

Despite the rejection of the amendment, the discussion highlighted a significant aspect of the debate. Medically assisted death, while often framed as a matter of personal freedom, also has budgetary implications. Excluding financial considerations from official evaluations raises questions: Can we really ignore the broader effects of such reforms?

While the meeting didn’t provide clear answers, it importantly raised the question for future discussions.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Évaluer le coût de la mort provoquée : l’amendement 996 secoue le débat”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Friday morning, members of the Social Affairs Commission voted on Article 14 of a proposed law concerning the end of life. This article aimed to introduce a conscience clause, but many professionals would be excluded from its protection.

Throughout the discussions, numerous amendments were rejected. Only four were accepted, including three from the report’s author, Stéphane Delautrette. The atmosphere was tense, with heated exchanges among the members.

The conscience clause, which allows healthcare providers to opt out of certain medical procedures for moral or ethical reasons, was not extended to nurses and caregivers. Patrick Hetzel pointed out that while there is a general conscience clause, it doesn’t apply in emergencies and isn’t valid for all healthcare workers. He argued that the clause should also protect nurses and medical assistants involved in end-of-life procedures.

Philippe Juvin highlighted the emotional aspect of end-of-life care, stating that even tasks like washing the deceased are significant and should respect the beliefs of those performing them. However, his argument was dismissed.

Many members of the Republican Right and the National Rally tried to extend the same protection to pharmacists. They questioned why doctors could refuse medical actions based on their beliefs, but pharmacists could not. The report’s author argued that pharmacists do not participate directly in the act of assisted dying.

Hadrien Clouet compared this situation to abortion, where pharmacists also lack a conscience clause. He emphasized that recognizing a person’s right over their own body means respecting their autonomy in all aspects, including assisted dying. Unfortunately, all amendments to protect pharmacists were rejected.

Thibault Bazin proposed an amendment to protect healthcare institutions from being forced to perform actions that contradict their ethical standards, arguing that euthanasia is not a medical treatment. This amendment, along with others, was also rejected.

The proposal mandates that healthcare providers who object to participating in assisted dying must inform their patients and refer them to someone who will. Some members wanted a strict 48-hour deadline for this notification, but these suggestions were turned down in favor of a more flexible approach where information must be given promptly.

Patrick Hetzel attempted to introduce the idea of a volunteer system for healthcare workers who want to assist with euthanasia, but this was rejected too. The report’s author feared that a public registry could lead to professionals being stigmatized.

Overall, the focus of the law has been on individual freedom regarding end-of-life choices. However, healthcare professionals feel sidelined in this discussion, as their rights and beliefs are not being adequately considered. Advocates for assisted dying view this proposed law as a step towards greater freedom, but it raises significant questions about the rights of those who provide care.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “La clause de conscience refusée aux pharmaciens, au nom de « la souveraineté de la personne sur elle-même, qu’il s’agisse d’une interruption de grossesse ou du droit de mourir dans la dignité »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Wednesday evening, members of the Social Affairs Commission approved four articles (10, 11, 12, 13), finishing their review of the part of the law that deals with “assisted dying.” Just like in previous meetings, most proposed changes were rejected.

One suggestion was made by Thibault Bazin, who wanted to ensure that if anyone had doubts during the process, it would be stopped immediately. Christophe Bentz raised a question about what would happen if a lethal dose didn’t work, and the patient showed doubt at that moment. The reporter, Stéphane Delautrette, responded that the technical details would be decided later by the Health Authority, so he couldn’t provide specific answers at this time. Bazin’s proposal was rejected.

Bazin also suggested that a national control commission should be able to stop a procedure if necessary, but Philippe Vigier disagreed. He thought that having such prior control was “technically impossible” and could lead to legal confusion. This idea was also rejected.

The discussions included the need for proper data collection. Philippe Juvin proposed that they should record patients’ doubts, thoughts, and statements during the entire process. The reporter was against this, fearing it would make the process too complicated and hard to manage. Juvin argued that not recording what the patient says means ignoring their feelings, but his amendment was rejected.

Some deputies were worried about how sensitive data would be stored safely. The reporter reminded them that the protections in the Data Protection Law and GDPR would apply. He proposed to clarify security standards through an amendment that was accepted. Another amendment by Elise Leboucher was also adopted, aiming to ensure that data related to recorded actions would have a specific coding system for better identification and tracking.

After the approval of Article 13, discussions continued, but they were long and tiring. Philippe Juvin wanted to limit how much time a doctor could spend on assisted dying cases and would revise his proposal. As it was almost midnight, the commission decided to pause discussions. The president, Frédéric Valletoux, scheduled another meeting for Friday morning at 9 AM, wishing everyone to rest well. They will begin by discussing the article on conscience clauses. Will one last day be enough to vote on the law?

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : la Commission termine l’examen des articles dédiés à la procédure”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Wednesday, the Social Affairs Committee spent the whole day discussing a proposed law about end-of-life issues. They debated for hours and managed to pass 8 articles. The discussion often revolved around the fact that supporters of euthanasia wanted full freedom without any safeguards or checks. While some argued the law was balanced, others were concerned that it heavily favored individual choice and the doctor’s decisions.

Many proposed changes, known as amendments, were rejected one after the other. Philippe Juvin, a committee member, suggested that decisions should be made unanimously by a group, but his idea was turned down. He also wanted a judge to quickly check that patients were giving their “free and informed consent” before proceeding, but the rapporteur of the bill, Olivier Falorni, disagreed, saying that consent would be checked by the doctor. This was challenged by those who supported Juvin’s amendment, but it was still rejected.

Cyrille Isaac-Sibille pushed for a judge to approve the group decision-making process, arguing that society should take responsibility for such laws instead of leaving it all to doctors. His amendment was also rejected. Some members wanted to shorten the time a doctor has to make a decision from 15 days to something quicker, while others argued for a longer reflection period. Juvin pointed out that euthanasia could happen in less than 48 hours, which is faster than some cosmetic surgeries that require more time for consideration. The rapporteur maintained that the current proposal was balanced, and again, all amendments were rejected.

Thibault Bazin suggested that for those under legal protection, a judge should be involved, but that amendment was rejected too. In a rare success, Juvin’s amendment requiring that a doctor’s decision be documented in writing was approved. However, amendments to inform family members were turned down.

Later discussions focused on where euthanasia could take place. Some members wanted to exclude palliative care units from being locations for euthanasia, but others argued that this would restrict patient freedom. These amendments were rejected, and the debate was put on hold.

Another amendment sought to ensure that minors would not be present during the administration of euthanasia, but this was also rejected after a heated discussion about family decision-making.

There was major contention over the lack of a conscience clause for pharmacists, which means they wouldn’t have the right to refuse to participate based on personal beliefs. Some argued that pharmacists should be able to judge a prescription, while others insisted that they should not have that power. Despite this debate, no amendments for a conscience clause were accepted.

As the discussions continued, one particularly controversial amendment suggested calling euthanasia a “natural death.” This led to an uproar, with some committee members insisting that a death caused by a lethal substance is the opposite of natural. They argued that it’s misleading to use the term “natural” when discussing euthanasia since it directly involves causing death through an active process. The debate highlighted how important it is to use precise language when discussing such serious topics.

The session ended with the passage of several articles, but many felt that the discussions raised more questions than answers about the ethics and responsibilities surrounding euthanasia.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “L’« aide à mourir » qualifiée de « mort naturelle » : le « mensonge sémantique » poussé « encore plus loin »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Monday, a committee in France looked at a new law that aims to protect people who want to become parents from discrimination at work. This proposal was presented by a group called Ensemble pour la République, and it was explained by a member named Prisca Thévenot. She wants to make sure that the law includes protections for people who are planning to have children, whether through medical assistance or adoption.

Currently, French law says you can’t be discriminated against for reasons like gender, age, health, or pregnancy, but it doesn’t specifically mention plans for parenthood. Thévenot argues that wanting to become a parent shouldn’t lead to unfair treatment in getting a job or in your career.

To support her proposal, Thévenot talked about issues like infertility and the idea of making medical assistance for everyone available. She believes that these topics are important and connected. Her goal is to help change how people think about and treat issues related to assisted parenting in the workplace.

After reviewing some changes to the proposal, the committee approved it unanimously. The full assembly will discuss it on May 5. For Thévenot, this is just the first step towards creating a real policy that supports different kinds of families.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Une proposition de loi adoptée en commission pour « protéger les personnes engagées dans un projet parental des discriminations au travail »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about a new initiative in Europe called “My Voice, My Choice” which is trying to push for a “right to abortion” across Europe. However, abortion is not something that the European Union (EU) has control over; it is up to each individual country to decide their own laws about it. The European Commission, which is part of the EU, has agreed to look into this initiative, but many people, including a group called One of Us, believe this is wrong.

One of Us is a large group made up of 50 organizations from 19 European countries, and they argue that this new initiative is disrespectful to the voices and votes of European citizens. They believe it’s a big deal when a group tries to influence the law about something as personal as abortion without respecting the individual laws of each country.

The EU operates under something called the Lisbon Treaty, which lays out what powers each level of government has. This treaty makes it clear that abortion is not one of the areas where the EU can make rules; it is solely the responsibility of the individual countries. The European Commissioner for Equality, Hadja Lahbib, has also reinforced this point, stating that abortion remains a matter for each country to handle.

Despite this, the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative asks the EU to “do everything in its power” to make abortion safe and accessible for everyone. This is seen as an attempt to go beyond what the EU is allowed to do. The proposal suggests creating a way for citizens to sidestep their own country’s laws by traveling to another country where abortion may be legal and even seeking support for this.

Critics say this approach is sneaky and can undermine national laws. They argue that it would not be right for the EU to ignore or challenge the decisions made by each country about such a sensitive issue as protecting human life, which is a fundamental right.

On the other hand, supporters of the initiative claim that it is not trying to interfere with national laws but rather to support citizens who want to make different choices. However, many are concerned that this could lead to the EU overriding the laws that countries have established through their democratic processes.

While the initiative focuses on pushing for abortion rights, it is important to recognize that the EU should also be focused on protecting life from the moment of conception. There have been calls in the past, like from 1.7 million European citizens who supported the One Of Us initiative, asking the EU to stop funding activities that lead to the destruction of human embryos, especially in research and healthcare.

In conclusion, as this debate continues, it’s crucial for the EU to remember the wishes of the citizens who have already expressed their views on these matters. The conversation about reproductive rights in Europe is complex, and it is essential to respect the laws and choices made by individual countries.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« My Voice, my Choice » : une initiative pour introduire un « droit à l’avortement » en Europe, en outrepassant les compétences de l’UE”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

Recently, the Social Affairs Commission of the National Assembly continued discussing a proposed law about end-of-life assistance, specifically about “aid to die.” Only one part of the law, which explains how people can access this aid, was approved.

There were heated debates about the “conscience clause,” which concerns whether doctors should have the right to refuse to participate in assisted dying. Some members argued that doctors should always inform patients about their options, while others believed doctors should have the freedom to choose whether to participate. There was division on this issue, showing the complexity of balancing patient needs and doctors’ beliefs.

One of the lawmakers, Laurent Panifous, suggested removing specific references to disability in the discussion, arguing that no one should be discriminated against. However, others thought it was important to mention disability because it can affect how people express their suffering. This led to more debates on how to handle patients with disabilities in this context.

Another significant point was about palliative care, which aims to relieve suffering without hastening death. Some lawmakers wanted patients to be guided to specialists in this care, emphasizing the importance of giving patients choices for treatment. However, there was also a push to focus on individual rights regarding assisted dying, with some arguing that if someone is suffering, they should have the right to die.

As discussions continued, some lawmakers expressed concern that making assisted dying too accessible could lead to vulnerable individuals feeling pressured to choose it. They pointed out that society should focus on caring for the most fragile among us rather than facilitating death.

The conversations highlighted deep divisions about how society should view the right to die. Some lawmakers believed that suffering at the end of life is a legitimate reason for assisted dying, while others warned against allowing such choices for people in fragile mental states.

One notable moment involved a lawmaker suggesting that patients be informed about potential complications of assisted dying, referencing past issues in places where it has been legalized. However, the committee seemed determined to proceed with their approach, aiming to establish a system that they believed would be better than existing models.

There was also a discussion about how decisions regarding assisted dying should be made. While the proposed law included a system where multiple healthcare professionals would provide input, ultimately, the doctor would have the final say. This raised concerns about whether this approach was fair and responsible.

As the discussions dragged on, there was a suggestion to use telehealth consultations for decision-making. Some believed this could help in areas where healthcare professionals are scarce, while others questioned if remote consultations would be sufficient for such serious decisions.

In the end, the assembly managed to vote on only one part of the proposed law, and more discussions are planned for the upcoming days to tackle the remaining sections. The ongoing debates show how complicated and sensitive the topic of assisted dying is, as it touches on ethics, healthcare, and the value of life.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : les défenseurs d’une « éthique de la vulnérabilité » face aux promoteurs d’un « droit social »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

After the Easter break, the deputies resumed discussions on a proposed law related to end-of-life issues. These discussions were sometimes tense but resulted in a vote on Article 4, which outlines the conditions for accessing “assisted dying.” Only three amendments were accepted, aiming to clarify that serious and incurable conditions can have various causes, not just medical ones but also accidental.

Some deputies, like Cyrille Isaac-Sibille and Agnès Firmin Le Bodo, want to make sure that psychological suffering alone is not a reason for euthanasia or assisted suicide. They believe it is essential to protect vulnerable individuals. However, their proposals were rejected, with the general rapporteur, Olivier Falorni, arguing that no type of suffering should be prioritized over another.

There were also concerns about people with intellectual disabilities potentially being excluded from this law, as highlighted by over 1,600 members of a collective. An amendment to exclude them was also turned down, emphasizing the risk that this law could pose to the most vulnerable.

Another amendment suggested that a person should not be in a state of psychological weakness that could impair their judgment when requesting euthanasia. This was also rejected, raising concerns about the fairness of allowing someone to choose euthanasia when they might not be able to make other important decisions.

The issue of incarcerated individuals was briefly addressed, focusing on their access to healthcare.

During lengthy debates on amendments from various political groups, discussions about adding euthanasia to advanced directives did not succeed, as the rapporteurs were against it.

By the end of the discussions on Article 4, a framework for accessing “assisted dying” was established. To qualify, a patient must be an adult, a French citizen or resident, suffering from a serious and incurable condition that threatens their life, and must experience unbearable physical or psychological suffering. The patient must also be able to express their wishes freely and clearly.

Olivier Falorni stressed the importance of maintaining balance in the current draft of the law, suggesting that the goal is to establish the principle of “assisted dying” before considering further changes. However, some deputies warned that the safeguards could be removed in the future.

As they moved on to Article 5 regarding procedures, some deputies attempted to remove the article to show their opposition to the law. They argued that it disrupts access to care and raises ethical concerns. Despite their efforts, all attempts to remove the article were rejected.

Further amendments concerning advanced directives and the need for written requests for “assisted dying” were also brought forward but were turned down. The request could be made orally, without the need for witnesses.

As the evening progressed, tensions rose during the discussions. Some deputies accused others of not understanding the proposed law. The president of the Social Affairs Commission tried to calm things down and highlighted the quality of the commission’s work.

There were discussions about consulting a trusted person or family if the patient is under legal protection, but this was deemed unnecessary by the rapporteur and rejected. One amendment regarding the adaptation of information for protected individuals was approved despite initial disapproval from the rapporteur, recognizing the importance of meeting the needs of people with disabilities.

The commission paused its work around midnight, leaving many amendments still to be reviewed. It seemed that the deputies were growing weary of the lengthy discussions.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : « ce texte prépare et permet toutes les dérives »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

A group of 1,682 people have written an opinion piece in the French newspaper Le Figaro, urging lawmakers to exclude individuals with disabilities from a proposed law that would allow assisted dying, or euthanasia. They are concerned about how this law could affect people with intellectual disabilities. They argue that it’s extremely urgent to make sure these individuals are protected.

The first way to approach this issue is by looking at the law itself to see what it really means. However, this is complicated because the law is hard to understand and has confusing parts. It states that a person must be able to express their wish to die freely and with full understanding. But what does “full understanding” really mean? Last year, a proposal to specifically protect people with intellectual disabilities from euthanasia was rejected because some believed it would discriminate against them. This suggests that these individuals could still be euthanized under the law.

Moreover, the law allows for euthanasia for someone under guardianship, which is supposed to protect people who can’t take care of themselves. This shows that the law might open the door for euthanasia for people with intellectual disabilities, ignoring their vulnerabilities and the challenges they face in expressing themselves. Those who care for people with these disabilities know how fragile they can be, and the idea that they could make a “free and informed” choice to die seems very unwise and could lead to tragic outcomes.

The second way to think about this issue is by considering recent events in France related to people with intellectual disabilities. This examination can be uncomfortable but is necessary. For example, in January 2023, a man with Down syndrome died in a hospital, and it seems he was euthanized by doctors against his family’s wishes. Another similar situation was nearly allowed but was stopped by a court, which highlighted the serious risk to the right to life for vulnerable individuals. These cases show that misunderstanding and underestimating people with intellectual disabilities can lead to terrible consequences.

Lawmakers should understand that prohibiting euthanasia is crucial because it protects the most vulnerable in society—those whose lives some might believe are not worth living. The idea of “free and informed consent” is often unrealistic for these individuals due to societal pressures that can make their lives seem burdensome.

The third way to approach this topic is by looking at other countries that have legalized euthanasia. This is simple because many organizations have already studied this. For example, the UN’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has expressed serious concerns about changes in Canada that allow euthanasia for individuals with disabilities based only on their condition. They note that this reflects negative views about the lives of persons with disabilities, suggesting that their suffering is tied to their disability rather than social inequalities and discrimination.

The UN also points out that the systems in place often fail to address the needs of individuals with disabilities, and the use of euthanasia is increasing, particularly among marginalized groups. This shows a troubling trend where euthanasia for disabled individuals is becoming more common and reinforces discrimination against them.

Given these facts, it’s shocking that lawmakers might still ignore the dangers this law poses to vulnerable people. If euthanasia is legalized, it could lead to a gradual broadening of who qualifies for it, increasing pressure on those who are already vulnerable. Therefore, it is crucial to act now to protect these individuals and explicitly exclude them from any assisted dying laws that threaten their lives.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Un gros risque en plus » : exclure les personnes handicapées du dispositif légal de mort administrée est « une urgence absolue »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

Laurent Frémont and Emmanuel Hirsch, two founders of the collective Democracy, Ethics, and Solidarity, recently shared their concerns about a proposed law regarding end-of-life care in France. They argue that this law marks a significant ethical shift that disregards the most vulnerable people and the fundamental purpose of medical care.

The law aims to provide legal assistance for dying, but it hides a more troubling reality: it sets up a fast-tracked, unclear process that could be dangerous for those who are most at risk. Instead of protecting patients, it exposes them; instead of offering care, it eliminates lives. The proposal introduces euthanasia and assisted suicide as forms of “care,” which conflicts with the medical goal of preserving life and providing comfort. This change could harm the trust between healthcare providers and patients and disrupt medical ethics in a way that no other country has attempted.

One of the main issues is that the law allows anyone with a severe and incurable illness, who is suffering and deemed to be in “unbearable” pain, to request assisted death. However, the terms used in the law are vague, and there are no clear medical criteria. This lack of precision could lead to serious abuses. Under a strict interpretation, over a million people, including those with chronic illnesses, mental health issues, or the elderly, could qualify for assisted dying. This is alarming.

What’s even more concerning is that it would be easier to get assisted dying than to receive proper medical care. A patient wouldn’t need to submit a written request or go through a thorough evaluation; just a simple oral request to an undefined “doctor” would suffice. A second medical opinion wouldn’t be mandatory, and the process could even happen without consulting family members. The proposed waiting period to receive assisted death is just fifteen days, which raises questions about whether this truly allows for informed and free choice.

The law would create a very coercive atmosphere where healthcare providers would be pressured to facilitate assisted dying within healthcare facilities. The concept of informed consent becomes meaningless in such a serious context. Medical professionals could face legal consequences if they try to dissuade someone from choosing assisted dying, and pharmacists would be required to provide the means for it without the option to refuse. This raises serious concerns about the freedom of conscience for those who are dedicated to life and care.

Assisted dying could take place at home, in hospitals, or nursing homes, without adequate oversight. The only checks would occur after someone’s death, based solely on declarations, with no involvement of family members who might not even know what happened until it’s too late. This creates a scenario in which many people could find out that their loved ones died without a chance to say goodbye, leading to a society filled with loneliness and silence.

Overall, this poorly prepared law threatens to change France’s approach to end-of-life care without meaningful debate about its profound implications. It does not create a new right; instead, it empties the ethical framework surrounding life and death.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Proposition de loi « fin de vie » : « elle ne protège pas, elle expose ; elle ne soigne pas, elle élimine »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Friday night, discussions about access to “assisted dying” began around 10 PM. There are five criteria that need to be looked at: two are about administration, and three are related to medical issues. Some lawmakers want to make these criteria easier, while others think they are already too relaxed.

The first criterion discussed is age. Some lawmakers, like Marie Mesmeur, argue that 18 is an “arbitrary age” and that the age limit should be reconsidered. However, Patrick Hetzel believes it is crucial to protect minors and warns against allowing access to euthanasia for anyone under 18. He insists that we should prioritize the safety of young people.

Olivier Falorni, who is leading the discussions, also opposes allowing euthanasia for minors but for different reasons. He sees the age limit as a necessary balance in the law, even though it might overlook some painful situations. Sandrine Rousseau suggests that eventually, they should allow minors to access assisted dying, following international examples. Philippe Juvin points out that once euthanasia is legalized, current restrictions may be lifted, indicating that the rules set now could just be a starting point.

The second administrative criterion under discussion is about nationality or whether someone lives legally in France. Some lawmakers argue that euthanasia should be a universal human right and should not be limited by legal or administrative criteria. Sandrine Rousseau insists that if French citizens can access assisted dying, then everyone in France, including undocumented immigrants, should have the same right. Danielle Simonnet echoes this sentiment, emphasizing equality in life and death regardless of legal status.

The general rapporteur, Olivier Falorni, and others wish to keep the nationality requirement in place, arguing that they need to find a balance to ensure the law passes without going too far. There is also concern about the idea of “death tourism,” where people might travel to access euthanasia. Olivier Falorni strongly rejects this idea, suggesting instead that it is more about people seeking refuge from suffering.

Next, the lawmakers discussed the medical criteria, specifically what it means to be in a “serious and incurable condition.” Many found these terms unclear. There were calls to clarify what “advanced or terminal phase” means, as it is based on an opinion from the health authority that has been pending for over a year. Some lawmakers expressed doubt that they could effectively legislate without this clarification.

Patrick Hetzel suggested returning to a definition of “imminent death” because many people in France suffer from serious conditions. He highlighted that some patients who still have years to live might be affected by the proposed law, which raised further concerns about how vague the criteria are.

Olivier Falorni argued against simplifying the criteria and insisted that the current definitions are sufficient. He believes there is no need to define “medium term” conditions. The discussions revealed contradictions, as some lawmakers had previously framed the proposal as only for rare cases.

The debates were intense, and by midnight, the lawmakers had not yet voted on the crucial article. They were trying to strike a balance to ensure the law passed while acknowledging that the criteria could change later once euthanasia becomes more accepted. Following a two-week parliamentary break, there are only four days left for discussions before the assembly votes. More than 16 articles are still up for debate, and it looks like the discussions will continue to be lengthy, leaving the timing of a resolution uncertain.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Euthanasier les sans-papiers ? Une proposition de… certains députés de gauche”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On Friday, after the proposal for palliative care was approved, members of the Social Affairs Committee began discussing a controversial law about “end of life” care. This law aims to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. While palliative care received unanimous support, the topic of euthanasia sparked heated debates among the lawmakers, with many interrupting each other.

There were 1,106 amendments to review, almost double the number for the palliative care law. Some lawmakers, like René Pilato, expressed impatience, arguing that they didn’t need to spend so much time debating since they had already covered most of the important points last year.

The choice of words was a significant point of contention. Patrick Hetzel and other lawmakers opposed to “assisted dying” began by arguing to remove Article 1 of the proposal, but their attempts were rejected. The discussions quickly shifted to the meaning of terms used in the law. Olivier Falorni, the general rapporteur of the text, insisted on using “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide” or “euthanasia,” claiming it was a more suitable phrase. His viewpoint won, and amendments to clarify the terms were rejected.

The first article of the proposal, out of 20, was adopted, which officially included “assisted dying” in public health law. For some, like Yannick Monnet, this represented a new “right,” while for others, like Patrick Hetzel, it was seen as a significant change in society’s values.

As they discussed Article 2, which defines “assisted dying,” there were clear divisions. Some members of the Republican Right wanted to exclude minors from the process, aware that criteria could change over time, as seen in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. Falorni opposed an amendment that would allow euthanasia for individuals who had previously expressed their wishes in advance directives, to avoid complications and ensure the bill progressed.

Euthanasia was no longer seen merely as an “exception.” Patrick Juvin tried to keep only assisted suicide in the proposal, similar to laws in Oregon. However, in countries that allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia, over 80% of cases are euthanasia, making it the norm rather than an exception. Falorni firmly disagreed with this change. Instead, an amendment was adopted allowing patients to choose whether they would self-administer the lethal substance or have it administered by someone else.

Several amendments aimed to expand who could administer the lethal substance beyond healthcare professionals, but Falorni opposed this, as it had sparked public concern in previous discussions. Article 2 was adopted without any amendments.

Before voting on Article 3, Brigitte Liso proposed that information about assisted dying should be presented in a way that everyone can understand. Some lawmakers supported this, believing it was essential to inform all citizens, including those with disabilities. However, Hetzel criticized the idea, suggesting it could promote assisted dying, leading to Liso withdrawing her amendment.

As the debate continued, lawmakers discussed the role of palliative care in relation to euthanasia. Hetzel insisted that access to palliative care should be a requirement before any request for euthanasia, while Falorni argued that such a condition would infringe on patients’ rights. He emphasized the commitment to improving access to palliative care with substantial funding over the next decade.

Annie Vidal later proposed adding the term “active” to “assisted dying,” wanting to clarify the nature of euthanasia. However, this amendment was also rejected. Throughout the discussions, it was clear that supporters of the bill were determined to see it passed, despite concerns about clarity and the implications of the law.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “« Aide à mourir » : la stratégie des députés pour faire passer un texte clivant”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

Recently, there has been an important discussion about “support houses” for people at the end of their lives and their connection to euthanasia, which is when someone helps another person die to relieve suffering. This topic came up during a meeting of politicians who are working on new laws about palliative care, which is care aimed at improving the quality of life for people who are seriously ill.

Some politicians are worried that the proposal to create these support houses might actually be a way to introduce euthanasia into the law. One politician, Patrick Hetzel, suggested that it would have been smarter to test these support houses before fully implementing them. He and another politician, Christophe Bentz, argued against including these houses in the new law unless there were guarantees that euthanasia would not take place there. They wanted it to be clearly stated that euthanasia would be prohibited in these houses, but their suggestions were turned down.

Olivier Falorni, who is in charge of the proposal about euthanasia, said that these support houses should be considered a new home for patients. He mentioned that while they should not be called “houses for assisted dying,” there shouldn’t be a rule against providing euthanasia services if the patients wanted that. Other politicians, like Jean-François Rousset, supported this idea, saying it would be wrong to move people from these houses if they wanted assistance to die.

Falorni insisted that any personal beliefs about euthanasia should belong to individuals, not to the buildings themselves, stating that “walls don’t have conscience.” However, some politicians pointed out that there are laws regarding the rights of medical facilities, which should also apply to these support houses.

In the end, Hetzel decided to withdraw his amendment, wanting to keep discussions open about how support houses should fit into palliative care.

Another big discussion was whether these support houses should be run for profit. Some politicians, like François Gernigon, thought it would be okay to allow profit-driven organizations to run these houses. However, many others disagreed, citing problems they’ve seen in private nursing homes where people have been mistreated. They argued that because the people using these services are very vulnerable, it’s better if these support houses are not for profit, especially when they are just starting out.

After much debate, the proposal was passed, making sure that support houses would not be allowed to operate for profit. By the end of the meeting, the politicians had discussed a lot of ideas and made progress on the new laws regarding palliative care, while also subtly including provisions about euthanasia, even though the original focus was supposed to be only on care.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Maisons d’accompagnement : le but lucratif est écarté, pas l’« aide à mourir »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

After a meeting with the Ministry of Health, the French National Assembly is reviewing two proposals regarding end-of-life care. This includes a focus on palliative care and the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. There are a lot of suggested changes to consider, with 620 amendments for the palliative care proposal and 1,099 for the euthanasia one.

The committee started by discussing palliative care, but the topic of “aid in dying” was also on everyone’s mind. Christophe Bentz, a member of the National Rally party, proposed an amendment to prevent any lethal substances from being given as part of palliative care. He emphasized the principle that “the hand that heals cannot be the hand that kills.” This idea sparked a significant and ongoing debate.

Some committee members were upset that this amendment was even being considered. Annie Vidal, who is supportive of the proposal, argued that it muddles the issue. Philippe Vigier, another member, expressed concern about how this would be perceived by the public.

Agnès Firmin Le Bodo, from the Horizons & Independents party, suggested that the two proposals should work together. She pointed out that the amendment would mean banning patients from asking for help to die, which she believes is wrong. Bentz responded by acknowledging that this means lethal substances could be used in palliative care, which contradicts the idea of healing.

Later, Vidal admitted that there would need to be connections made between the two proposals. An amendment stating that there is no link between palliative care and assisted suicide was rejected.

As the discussion continued, unusual alliances formed among the committee members. Even though the topic is serious, the atmosphere was somewhat light-hearted at times, which Vidal noted was unexpected given the gravity of the subject.

With support from the left-wing France Insoumise party, Justine Gruet’s amendment was approved, requiring an annual report on the implementation of a ten-year strategy for care support, rather than a mid-term review. This report will also assess any extra funding needed.

The committee kept the idea of a “right to care” and adopted amendments to ensure it can be enforced. This means a family member or trusted person can take legal action to ensure the patient receives the necessary care.

As the night went on, the committee made some progress but decided to take a break to allow members to vote on a separate economic simplification bill. The discussion on palliative care will continue the next day.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : deux textes distincts mais « des passerelles » à venir”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

In the Indian state of Haryana, the Health Ministry is looking into data from 120 fertility clinics to understand how effective their campaign against the elimination of girls before birth has been. Haryana is known for having one of the most imbalanced ratios of girls to boys in the world.

Typically, there are about 104 to 106 boys born for every 100 girls. However, this ratio changes due to higher natural mortality rates for boys under one year old. By adulthood, there are slightly more women than men, except in Asia and some Balkan countries where girls are often eliminated before or after birth.

There are various ways to eliminate girls before birth. Parents can choose the sex of their child by sorting sperm or embryos before they are implanted. After pregnancy begins, blood tests can identify the sex chromosomes of the embryo. More invasive methods like amniocentesis can also determine the sex. The easiest way to find out the gender is through an ultrasound starting at around 16 weeks of pregnancy.

In India, some states have a ratio of 115 boys for every 100 girls, while states like Kerala have a more balanced population. Although sex-selective testing was banned in 1994, wealthier families still find ways to have it done. This issue is especially prevalent in Haryana, where recent government data shows that the birth ratio fell to 910 girls for every 1,000 boys in 2024, down from 916 the previous year. A major census in 2011 recorded a shocking ratio of just 834 girls for every 1,000 boys.

In neighboring China, the gender imbalance was similarly high, with a ratio of 115.3 boys for every 100 girls in 2023, despite the end of the one-child policy in 2015. South Korea experienced a peak gender ratio of 116 boys for every 100 girls in 1991 but has since returned to a more normal balance.

Since the 1990s, countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Albania have seen rising gender imbalances similar to those in India. In Armenia, the government is aware of the impact this has had on their population, stating that around 80,000 girls have “never been born,” which affects their demographic balance.

Even after migrating, some families continue these practices, leading to an estimated shortage of 1,400 to 4,700 girls in England and Wales. France, however, seems to be less affected by this issue. In the Netherlands, revealing the sex of a fetus during ultrasound for medical reasons is prohibited, but some clinics offer “fun” ultrasounds for commercial purposes starting as early as 13 weeks into the pregnancy.

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has identified three common reasons for the elimination of girls in certain countries: a strong preference for sons, declining fertility rates, and access to medical technologies that allow gender selection. In many Asian countries, cultural practices reinforce this preference, making families view daughters as financial burdens instead of assets.

To combat this issue, it’s crucial to have accurate statistics. In India, over half of children are not registered, making it difficult to measure the problem accurately. Haryana has implemented new rules to limit the distribution of abortion pills outside approved facilities and to investigate clinics that perform more abortions than average.

The main reason for the elimination of girls is the societal preference for boys, which results in unequal treatment of men and women. The case of South Korea is a notable example; after 1990, as women became more educated and entered the workforce, sex-selective abortions declined significantly.

Efforts to address the issue continue, with organizations like UNICEF promoting the importance of civil registration at birth to improve data collection and support for girls.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “En Inde comme dans d’autres pays, les autorités se battent contre l’élimination des filles”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On April 9, the Social Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly had a serious meeting to discuss two important proposals related to end-of-life care. Catherine Vautrin, the Minister of Labor, Health, Solidarity, and Families, and Yannick Neuder, the Deputy Minister for Health, were there to explain these proposals, which focus on palliative care and end-of-life assistance. This discussion revealed some deep ethical and political tensions.

Catherine Vautrin argued that her proposals are “balanced” and based on two main ideas: everyone should have access to palliative care, and there should be a special framework for “exceptional situations” where assisted dying could be allowed under strict conditions. She emphasized that this is a serious matter involving life and death. Vautrin made it clear that her plan is not about euthanasia, but instead, assistance would only be provided if a patient is unable to end their life on their own.

Olivier Falorni, who supports the end-of-life proposal, described it as a significant law promoting freedom, equality, and brotherhood. He argued that it would provide an option for patients suffering from terminal illnesses who do not want to endure prolonged suffering. However, some critics worry that this could create a “right to die” too easily.

Yannick Neuder pointed out that currently, only half of those who need palliative care actually receive it. With an aging population, the need for such care is expected to rise by 15% by 2034, meaning around 440,000 people will require it. The proposal aims to better organize palliative care services and create new care centers. There was some debate about what to call these centers, with some members of the committee expressing concerns over terminology.

The meeting also highlighted sensitive issues, such as the concept of “discernment.” Vautrin stated that patients who have lost consciousness due to neurodegenerative diseases would not qualify for assisted dying since they cannot make rational decisions. This response came after questions from a member of the committee about whether the proposal could include people with chronic, unbearable suffering, including minors.

Another controversial topic was whether pharmacists should have the right to refuse to participate in the assisted dying process. The government argued against this, claiming that there is no direct link between the pharmacist and the patient since the lethal substance would be given to a healthcare professional, not directly to the patient. Critics pointed out that without the lethal substance, euthanasia would not be possible.

Throughout the debate, some members of the National Assembly expressed disappointment that the government chose to present a standard bill instead of a more structured one, which could allow for a better discussion. They even called for a referendum on the issue, but Vautrin responded that such a societal topic cannot be put to a referendum without changing the Constitution.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Fin de vie : Catherine Vautrin défend deux textes « équilibrés »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a big part of our lives, and some people think that it might lead to a “war of intelligences” where humans could lose out. But does this idea of a “war” really make sense? Rémi Sentis, a scientist and researcher, shared his thoughts on this topic.

Recently, France held an international conference about AI, where President Emmanuel Macron announced plans to invest 109 billion euros into it. He believes AI could bring major changes, especially in healthcare. Does Rémi Sentis agree with this excitement?

Sentis thinks that while there’s a lot of hype around these investments, a significant portion of the money might not even go directly to AI itself. Instead, it could be spent on things like regulations and monitoring social media. Often, when new technologies are promoted, health is used as a reason to push for them.

He points out that having a single source for funding, like the government, could be a problem. It means that only a few people will decide how to use that money, and innovation thrives on diverse ideas and approaches.

Some experts are worried about the risks of AI, and there have even been “counter-summits” to raise awareness about these dangers. Sentis acknowledges that tools like surgical robots and medical imaging software can be beneficial. However, he warns about the potential for using implants to “upgrade” humans, which has been a fantasy for decades.

One major concern is the rise of automated medical diagnostic tools. In some cases, nurses might collect patient data and send it to an AI program that makes a diagnosis and suggests treatment, taking away the nurse’s decision-making role. This raises a big issue: if things go wrong, who is responsible? AI is just a tool created by someone, and both designers and users need to understand their responsibilities when using it.

There are also new uses for AI in prenatal testing, which can dehumanize unborn children by reducing them to mere data points. Some people believe that using AI in this way is just progress, but Sentis sees it as a serious ethical problem.

With the rapid spread of AI, there’s a concern that it will become increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction. This could lead to manipulation and loss of control in our information-rich world. Sentis argues that the reality of cyberspace is far from the idealistic view that AI will lead to peace and progress.

As regulations like the AI Act come into play, there’s a call for global rules around AI usage. Although the AI Act has some good points, it also has many exceptions that could allow for risky uses of AI to continue. Sentis believes that while rules are necessary, we also need a strong moral foundation to guide how we use these technologies.

Finally, Sentis discusses the development of robots that resemble humans and the idea of “biological AI” where living cells are used in computing. He highlights that no matter how advanced machines get, they will never have a true body like humans do, which is essential for emotional connections and experiences.

In conclusion, while AI holds great promise, it’s crucial to approach its development and usage carefully, focusing on responsibility and ethical considerations to ensure that it benefits humanity rather than harms it.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “Développement de l’intelligence artificielle : « la santé sert de prétexte »”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..

On March 18, the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Life Sciences and Health (CCNE) released a statement about its Opinion No. 148, which focuses on the ethical issues related to vulnerability in the context of medical advancements and the limitations of the healthcare system.

The committee pointed out that while scientific and technological progress in medicine can improve life expectancy and help manage many diseases, it can also create unexpected problems. Some people might find themselves in more vulnerable situations because of these advancements.

The CCNE emphasizes that the ethics of medical progress shouldn’t just be about technological innovation or prolonging life. It should also consider the quality of life, the decision-making autonomy of patients, and respect for their dignity. They believe that medicine needs to fulfill a true social responsibility, going beyond just applying knowledge and protocols.

Dr. Régis Aubry, one of the authors of Opinion 148, stressed that the ethics of vulnerability should be the foundation of the healthcare system, not just an added concern.

The CCNE made several sensible recommendations. Firstly, it suggested improving training for healthcare professionals so they can better identify and support vulnerable patients. They also mentioned that the healthcare system needs to be restructured to prevent these vulnerable situations, ensure fair access to treatments, maintain continuity of care, and enhance coordination among health and social care providers.

Moreover, the CCNE aims to promote collective discussions and dialogue between healthcare providers and patients to avoid unnecessary or inappropriate medical care, and to better recognize the roles of family and professional caregivers.

The goal is to move beyond a purely biomedical view of care towards a more human and integrated approach, focusing on a genuine therapeutic alliance between healthcare providers and patients.

Two weeks after the CCNE’s announcement, vulnerability has become a hot topic, especially concerning end-of-life discussions. In a piece for the newspaper Le Monde, Bruno Dallaporta, a nephrologist, and Faroudja Hocini, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, stated that vulnerability should no longer be seen as something to hide. Instead, it affirms our humanity and adds depth and vitality to our lives.

They noted that vulnerability isn’t just about being fragile; it can also be a source of creativity and growth, where challenges can be turned into resources with help from others. They argue that this isn’t just about coping with trauma but about creating a new version of oneself rather than simply rearranging one’s inner world.

According to Dallaporta and Hocini, vulnerability calls for both individual and collective responsibility. This responsibility towards vulnerable individuals isn’t about pity or charity; it is a fundamental aspect of being human.

This article has been translated and simplified by artificial intelligence from a French article “CCNE : fonder le système de santé sur « l’éthique de la vulnérabilité » ?”
It may therefore contain errors. The French version is the reference version..