For several years now, France has been embroiled in a debate over proposed end-of-life legislation that would legalize euthanasia. The latest version of the bill bundled palliative care together with euthanasia, with wording that pro-life opponents of euthanasia describe as deceptive (speaking of “aid in dying” without distinction). France’s new prime minister, François Bayrou (appointed in December of 2024), has decided to split the bill in two, placing palliative care on the one hand and euthanasia/assisted suicide on the other. This is excellent news.
All those directly involved in palliative care, and all thinkers with a real understanding of medical ethics, had expressed their incomprehension at the association of these two irreconcilable fields. This made the bill impossible to vote on!
The lack of distinction meant you could not say “yes” to support palliative care but “no” to euthanasia and assisted suicide.
This legislative and legal absurdity has been widely denounced by people in favor of life. The bill’s proponents were determined to trap members of parliament with little knowledge of these complex subjects. In fact, this was the case; after the aborted vote on a version of the bill on April 8, 2021, a deputy reacted as follows before a panel of experts:
“Oh! but if I had known it was euthanasia, I would never have voted for a law on ‘aid dying.’”
This is just one more example of how confused people's minds could be by the previous wording.
The choice of words: A deliberate deception
Do words really no longer mean anything? The use of the expression “aid in dying” is a deliberate deception. This expression, laboriously defended by the President and successive Ministers of Health, is used only to mask the reality of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Once again, let's salute the Orsenna Commission for its political courage in 2023 in refusing to redefine terms that are perfectly well defined in France’s various codes and official texts: suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, palliative care, accompaniment; all these are very clearly marked out and have no reason to be modified.
According to the proposal that didn’t adequately distinguish euthanasia from palliative care, you could ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide in advance in your "living will," with no time limit or prognosis if you have a chronic illness. And your family could take care of the dirty work when you're cognitively impaired ... with all the predictable excesses!
The leap from the right to refuse treatment to the right to choose euthanasia constitutes an anthropological break. This is ultraliberalism without limits, insane self-determination, without recourse to the solidarity that is the basis of all civilization: “No man is an island,” said John Donne.
And let's not forget the psychological damage within families, when it's the grandson who euthanizes the grandfather, or the spouse who euthanizes the relative who doesn't want to live with a chronic illness for which he refuses all treatment!
Does “end of life” mean “induced death”? Not yet!
A few days ago, overwhelmed by emotion, a member of parliament said to us during a conversation: “So, you're against the end of life?” Well, no, sir, you can't be “against the end of life,” which will one day concern you, too. You can be against the decriminalization of euthanasia, but not against the end of life, which is a human, normal, and not scandalous inevitability.
“End of life” does not mean induced death (i.e. euthanasia and/or assisted suicide). The end of life is natural! The words of the President of the French National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, at a ceremony to welcome journalists on January 23, testify to the extreme confusion that is spreading: “If the text is split up, we are jeopardizing the end of life” (sic)!
As palliative care practitioners, we are delighted to see that palliative care is finally guaranteed sustainable funding. And to clearly distinguish it from a social problem that is not medical: allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide, virtually without limits.
Indeed, Bill 204, championed by MP Olivier Falorni, combines the formulas adopted in Canada, Belgium and Switzerland ... In short, we’d hold the world record for laxity. For example, a member of your family would be able to kill you (art. 29, para. 8), or you could be convicted if you try to prevent the suicide of someone who asks you to (offence of obstruction, art. 37).
No one can say they didn't know
Finally, let's stop extolling the democratic value of the citizens' convention on the end of life, made up of 185 people who were carefully manipulated over several weeks. Vigorous voices have been raised in its midst to say that euthanasia is not the solution. And let's dare to talk about the savings that political and mutualist hypocrisy passes over with stupefying cynicism: hundreds of millions of euros in savings are expected with the implementation of bill 204. The calculations have been made and are implacable (cf. Les non-dits économiques et sociaux du débat sur la fin de vie, Fondapol, January 2025).
Perhaps, in the end, the deputies will vote for a law that will worsen the situation of the world of care and wound our humanity, as foreign countries that have decriminalized induced death are showing us. But no one will be able to say they didn't know. And “just because those who are wrong are many, doesn't mean they're right,” as Coluche once said: the tragedy of democracy...
