By Hélène de Lauzun, European Conservative. (Photo: Denisse Leon/Unsplash)
Contrary to what the media say, there is no consensus on assisted dying in French society.
In a dramatic turn, French senators, in the midst of reviewing the euthanasia bill, radically changed the initial draft to reaffirm the ban on assisted suicide and killing for medical reasons. Will the message thus sent be strong enough to put an end to this disastrous bill?
The turn is quite unexpected: while senators initially seemed to be rushing the vote on the euthanasia bill, the situation was turned on its head at the end of the day on Wednesday, January 21st. On Tuesday, senators adopted Article 1 of the bill, incorporating “medical assistance in dying” into the public health code. But in contradiction to this first ominous vote, they rejected Article 4, which enshrined the principle of euthanasia and assisted suicide for patients “at the end of life,” by 144 votes to 123.
The rebellion came from an alliance between right-wing and centrist senators, who voted to categorically reject the major reform sought by Emmanuel Macron since the beginning of his first term. Senator Stéphane Ravier, a member of the Identity and Freedoms party and close associate of Marion Maréchal, described euthanasia as a “crime against humanity.”
But the final reversal was made possible by votes coming from the left, although from a different stance: in favour of euthanasia, but showing disagreement with a bill they considered too timid in its final provisions, they would have preferred euthanasia and assisted suicide to apply not only to patients “at the end of life” but also to patients “in an advanced stage.”
After the rejection of Article 4, with the initial text thus rendered meaningless, the question arose as to whether there was any point in continuing the debate. The Socialists were particularly disappointed, as they did not think that their angry gesture would have such consequences.
Faced with this unprecedented situation, Health Minister Stéphanie Rist said that there was no choice but to continue the debate. “If I withdrew this text, it would halt the parliamentary process. I do not want that,” she replied.