The National Assembly is considering the texts on access to palliative care and the right to die on Monday, February 16. A major societal reform that is expected to spark heated debates in the hemicycle.
The right to die is once again at the heart of debates in the National Assembly. After an initial reading by the Senate, deputies will once again address the two texts on palliative and end-of-life care this Monday evening, starting from 9:30 pm.
The adoption of these bills has been tumultuous due to political developments since the dissolution of the National Assembly in June 2024. While the first text aiming to ensure equal access to palliative care for all is agreed upon by both chambers, the second one on the right to end-of-life, a key part of the right to die, was rejected by the Senate in its first reading after a week of chaotic debates.
This second text is expected to continue to stir debates in the National Assembly. If the deputies had adopted the text, they were torn apart on both the semantics and the rights themselves.
The opposition consists mainly of elected officials from the Republican right, UDR, and RN, but several groups are widely divided on the issue within the common platform. Even the left has some rebels. In parallel, unwavering supporters of the right to die will try to reintroduce certain concepts removed by the commission. These positions will be reiterated on Monday.
“The right to die”, “euthanasia” or “assisted suicide”
The term “right to die” is still criticized. Several deputies argue for the use of the terms “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide”. Opponents of the text have submitted over a hundred amendments in this regard.
The expression is “by nature, euphemistic”, and “tends to conceal the reality of the acts envisaged,” according to one of them. In the commission, Deputy Olivier Falorni (Modem group), author of the text, once again justified his position: the term euthanasia “has been tainted by history, by the use made of it by the Nazi regime”, and that of assisted suicide “introduces confusion” regarding the “fight we must lead in favor of suicide prevention”.
Opponents of the text will also try to modify certain eligibility criteria as the text requires the individual to be of “French nationality or to reside stably and regularly in France”. Right-wing and far-right elected officials want to eliminate the residency criterion to avoid any “death tourism”, as some have denounced.
Administration and freedom of choice
The commission removed a clarification that had been added in the first reading, stating that “solely psychological suffering” should not “in any way entitle one to benefit from the right to die”. Opponents will try to reintroduce it.
Some deputies also demand that it be mandatory for the patient to consult with a psychiatrist, psychologist, or palliative care specialist, among others, before deciding to invoke the right to die.
One last criterion states that the patient must be “able to express their will in a free and informed manner”. However, some deputies will try to allow for the consideration of advance directives.
In terms of administration, the applicant is accompanied by a doctor or nurse. Self-administration is the rule, and administration by the accompanying doctor or nurse is the exception when the patient “is not physically able to do so”. Several deputies favorable to the text, however, hope to restore freedom of choice, allowing anyone to delegate the act if they wish.
The role of doctors debated
The debates will also focus on the position of doctors. Currently, the text allows any doctor or nurse to invoke a conscience clause to refuse to perform the right to die. But opponents want to reverse this logic: doctors should not be presumed available to perform the right to die unless they voluntarily register on a dedicated list.
The author of the text, Olivier Falorni, strongly opposes this as he believes it would restrict access to this right.
The most hostile deputies also propose to introduce a conscience clause for pharmacists who dispense the substance, and even for healthcare facilities as a structure.
Some elected officials will also try to create an offense of incitement to assisted dying and suicide. Currently, the text only provides for an offense of obstructing the right to die.
This major societal reform also divides the French population. While some have ardently demanded it for years, others are outraged and call for safeguards. A gathering of opponents of the end-of-life text is also planned near the Invalides in Paris at 7 pm before the opening of the session at the National Assembly.
