On Monday, May 12, the French National Assembly reopened the debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide, after nearly a year of legislative interruption caused by the dissolution of parliament and the snap elections held in June and July 2024. The bill, promoted by President Emmanuel Macron’s government, is presented in two separate texts: one focused on the development of palliative care, and the other on what is termed “assisted dying.”
The bill was approved by a parliamentary committee on May 2nd. Its current draft outlines a framework that would allow certain patients to request medical assistance to die, under conditions still under discussion. The plenary debate is expected to last at least two weeks, with a double vote scheduled for May 29th.
The proposal has sparked divisions even within the government itself. While former prime minister and current parliamentary leader of Macron’s bloc Gabriel Attal has defended the measure by invoking the need to relieve suffering in extreme cases, other government figures—such as interior minister Bruno Retailleau—have questioned the project’s balance, arguing that the current proposal facilitates access to euthanasia more than to palliative care.
Beyond the political debate, the issue has provoked a notable exchange of arguments in the media and on social networks. Representatives from the medical, legal, and philosophical fields have expressed diverse opinions. Some medical associations have voiced their support for the measure; a recent survey by the Ifop institute indicates that 74% of French doctors would be in favor of allowing a form of “assisted dying,” although support is higher among general practitioners (80%) than among specialists (70%).
In contrast, several professionals in the field of palliative care have raised concerns about the removal of safeguards that were initially included in the text. Among the amendments rejected during the committee stage were provisions such as evaluating the absence of pressure on the patient, the participation of a psychiatrist in doubtful cases, judicial involvement for individuals under guardianship, and expanded conscience clauses for healthcare professionals.
The legal and social dimensions of the bill have also been subject to scrutiny. Critics warn of the possible expansionist effect that legalizing euthanasia could have, citing precedents in countries like Canada, where the legal framework has widened since its initial adoption.
For its part, the government has attempted to present the bill as a balance between compassion and responsibility, carefully avoiding labeling it directly as a “euthanasia law” in order to obscure its real implications. A similar situation occurred in countries like Spain, where the left presented it as “the right to die with dignity.”
French health minister Catherine Vautrin has emphasized that the measure would be exceptional and subject to strict conditions, although her statements also acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling divergent positions across the parliamentary spectrum. This argument has also been used on other occasions, but the truth is that, like abortion, euthanasia is a slippery slope, with numbers increasing year after year.
Approval of the bill in the National Assembly seems likely thanks to support from the presidential majority and several left-wing groups. However, its passage in the Senate, where conservatives hold a majority, could face greater challenges. The outcome of this legislative debate will be crucial in defining France’s future legal framework regarding end-of-life issues.