In a press release published on June 2, 2026, the French Society for Support and Palliative Care requested the pure and simple withdrawal of the text on assisted dying, considering that after the rejection of the text by the Senate on first and second readings and the failure of the joint joint committee, leaving the last word to the Chamber of Deputies would constitute a forced passage on a subject which deeply divides society.
The semantics used in the drafting of the text are considered by a number of health professionals as well as political and civil actors to carry dangerous ambiguity.
A provoked death
Indeed, the parliamentarians chose not to use the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide which are frightening even though they are at the heart of their proposal. It is indeed an induced death that is being debated, and as Albert Camus very rightly wrote: “To misname things is to add unhappiness to the world”. The points of disagreement that come from the field are major and irreconcilable with the proposal put forward by the deputies.
The deputies adopted, on June 10, despite the opinion of the National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE), an amendment which establishes the choice between euthanasia and assisted suicide, marking a clear break with the initial text which provided for reserving euthanasia for patients physically incapable of carrying out the lethal procedure themselves.
Furthermore, the criteria of constant and lasting suffering retained as essential to justify such a request are deleted by the Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly on third reading, which breaks down the safeguards which made it possible to strictly regulate it.
Parliamentarians, by presenting the lethal gesture as a therapeutic option, falling within the medical act, integrated into the public health code, assimilate it to treatment. For the medical profession, this act contravenes the fundamental principles of medical ethics. Indeed, causing death is irreconcilable with the Hippocratic oath “I will never cause death”.
Danger for the most vulnerable
The amendment aiming to qualify euthanasia as “natural death”, in particular to guarantee the rights of heirs who benefit from insurance contracts, introduces a major anthropological break, “completely manipulating the meaning of the words”, as PS MP Dominique Potier points out.
The medical profession also warns of the danger of the text for the most vulnerable people. In fact, no protection is granted to them. Thus, adults under guardianship and people with intellectual disabilities are not excluded from the “assisted dying” system.
The amendments which aimed to explicitly exclude people with intellectual disabilities and provided for vigilance regarding cognitive, psychological or intellectual disorders as well as the obligatory referral to a psychiatrist in case of doubt were simply rejected. Is it not paradoxical to consider that protected adults are prohibited from carrying out certain everyday acts while considering that in matters of assisted dying, their consent is considered informed?
Tie Break
Finally, various bodies including the CCNE, the Court of Auditors, the Citizens’ Convention on the end of life, the Senate and the Council of State have established the development of palliative care units as an essential prerequisite for reflection on the right to die. Today, more than twenty years after the Leonetti law, more than twelve years after the Claeys-Leonetti law, twenty departments still do not have it, creating a real break in equality for citizens when it comes to end-of-life support.
The urgency, rather than hastily legislating on euthanasia, without the agreement of one of the two chambers representing the people, would it not rather be to implement the right to dignified support at the end of life in palliative care units in sufficient numbers throughout the territory, as provided for by previous laws?
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
