By Hélène de Lauzun, European Conservative.
The legislative process for introducing euthanasia in France was put on hold by the government’s collapse in December 2024. Discussions have resumed in the National Assembly, but agreement remains elusive consensus in sight on this contentious issue.
The subject has been on the French parliament’s agenda for many months. The adoption of a highly progressive law introducing euthanasia and assisted suicide at the expense of palliative care was halted in December 2024 with the fall of Michel Barnier’s government but debates finally resumed in January 2025. This time, the latest version of the text set to be voted on by MPs is being sent back to committee for further review.
On May, 27th, 2025, two separate bills will be put to the vote: one on the introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the other on the development of palliative care. This is in itself a small symbolic victory for the pro-life camp, as the merging of the two issues into a single law, as initially planned during the previous debates, was a manoeuvre designed to make euthanasia acceptable by linking it to a putative development of palliative care for patients in great suffering and at the end of life. The separation into two laws makes it possible to highlight more clearly the dangerous abuses contained in the euthanasia law without trying to drown them out with other, seemingly more benevolent articles.
The euthanasia law about to be examined is extremely dangerous, and the safeguards against abuses that have been denounced elsewhere in countries that have followed this path appear to be largely insufficient. Modelled on existing practices surrounding abortion, it introduces a form of ‘obstruction offence’ targeting doctors who oppose the practice of euthanasia. Doctors will not be allowed to refuse a request from someone seeking their assistance in ending their life, at the risk of being prosecuted for ‘obstruction.’. Doctors will only be able to invoke a vague and very general conscience clause.
The requirement for a joint decision by a group of medical professionals has been removed. In the current draft law, everything rests on the decision of a single individual, who will not be able to maintain their objections for long if the patient invokes ‘unbearable suffering.’ The ambiguity surrounding the concept of an ‘advanced or terminal life-threatening prognosis’ leaves room for conflicting interpretations in cases involving seriously ill patients whose conditions evolve in complex ways, often without a clear diagnosis. Finally, financial pressure remains a taboo topic that none of the proponents of euthanasia dare to address openly when it comes to choosing euthanasia over palliative care.