Alliance VITA audition at the French Senate on so-called “Assistance in dying”
Alliance VITA was auditioned on 4th September 2025 by the reporters of the proposed Bill on the end of life, an opportunity for expressing its firm opposition to the legalisation of “assistance in dying”.
Tugdual Derville, spokesman, and Caroline Roux, Deputy CEO, reacted against the expression “assistance in dying” as it is a misleading subterfuge. The Council of State itself recognised in 2024 that in using the expression “assistance in dying”, “the text creates a procedure authorising assisted suicide and euthanasia.” This is equivalent to lifting the prohibition against killing, by use of a softened terminology. Not only does this expression lead to a positive connotation to the act of administering death, as if it were an “altruistic act”, but it is designated by a term which could be used for palliative care.
The main points developed
An insecure system
In truth, it is not possible to secure a system which opens the door to causing death. As a result, the “quality of life” criterion, which has replaced life expectancy threatened in the medium term, implies that some lives are not worth living. This is extremely dangerous and discriminatory. The criterion of “unbearable psychological suffering according to the person” (who would decide to end a treatment) is as unquestionable as it is unverifiable. By doing away with the end-of-life situation, this potentially leads to including in the scope of eligibility hundreds of thousands of people according to the analysis by Alliance VITA, an estimate similar to the one made by the SFAP (Society for Accompaniment and Palliative Care).
These measures are all the more concerning since the checking of the procedure would be conducted after the event, whereas the consequences are fatal and irreversible: the criteria will only be checked once the person is deceased. Whence the need to establish a check beforehand.
Exclusion of some people from suicide prevention
Some people would thus be discriminated against, whereas they are the very ones who most need protection due to the gravity of their disease and their psychic suffering. How can one exclude some categories of patients from the prevention of suicide? This is a serious obstacle to the universality of its prevention.
The very principle of a so-called “assistance in dying” undermines the vulnerable, by introducing the culture of the relativity of the value of their life. Experience shows that wherever euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalised, they are requested for “altruist” reasons associated with the way you are looked at, or pressure from others. Euthanasia and assisted suicide appear contrary to solidarity. Witness accounts received from other nations which have legalised such practices shows that people think deep in their mind that their lives are not worth living. The fear of being a burden for their relatives is regularly mentioned by patients.
The role of carers is distorted
The role of carers is not to cause death. The very principle of the prohibition of killing, recorded in their code of ethics, is meant to preserve them – and to preserve their patients – from this all-powerful temptation. The conscience clause for health professionals would be restricted to only those professionals who play an active part and they should inform their patients about “assistance in dying” by assisted suicide or euthanasia, not attempt to dissuade them, and should redirect them, if need be, to another doctor.
Contrary to the other nations which have legalised such practices, chemists would not benefit from the conscience clause in spite of the request by Synprefh (National Union of Pharmacists for Public Health Establishments). As for the institutions, they would also be excluded.
The true decision belongs to one and only one doctor. It would not be truly collegial. However – and that is the trap of the attenuating measures – resorting to a sort of medical tribunal to legitimise the killing of a patient, by diluting the responsibilities of the decision-makers, would be equally reprehensible. Such a decision, whether individual or collective, remains an injustice and a denial of humanity.
One-way obstruction offence
A two-year prison sentence and 30,000€ fine would be applicable to any person attempting to dissuade a person from ending his/her life, in particular “by exerting moral or psychological pressures.” This measure would be in direct opposition to the public policy of suicide prevention. This breakdown in solidarity will undoubtedly undermine the work of psychiatrists, at a time when that discipline is experiencing, even more than the rest of the health system, serious organisational and budgetary difficulties, and at a time when mental health has been declared as the major national cause for 2025.
On the other hand, no offence for inciting to assisted suicide or euthanasia through pressure or publicity is envisaged: such double standards endanger the most vulnerable.
And, here is a flagrant injustice: only those associations whose aim includes “the defence of the rights of people to obtain assistance in dying” could join a court action in cases of an alleged obstruction offence.
Insidious pressures
The pressures are not only visible and objectifiable. The very existence of a State procedure for assisted suicide and euthanasia already acts as a pressure on those who would be declared as “eligible”. A “right to die” implies eligibility conditions which establish hierarchies between lives, some being valuable and benefiting from suicide prevention, and others, which have become of no value, “benefiting” from assisted suicide or euthanasia. The claims – in particular by those in good health – for a right to assisted suicide and euthanasia, in fact reflect a eugenist mentality, the idea that some lives are of no value, unworthy of being lived, useless or even costly. The validist movement expresses a fury which echoes such a mentality.
Need for care, not euthanasia
The wording under article 5 which states that the doctor must ensure “if the person so wishes, that he/she […] should have effective access” to palliative care, is a pipe-dream. How can one hope to be credible when presenting, at the same time, a 10-year development plan for palliative care, which moreover is undersized, as well as a law on “assistance in dying” which would be immediately applicable?
When questioned in September 2024 on their expectations from the new Prime Minister, the French public answered first of all, buying power followed by the social system including health and pensions. The concern for the end of life comes much further down in 15th position[1].
Recommendation
The adequate answer to the end-of-life issue is application of the 1999 law recognising a right of access to pain relief treatments and palliative care.
The current urgency is to implement the 10-year development programme for palliative care.
[1] Toluna Harris Interactive/LCI. Flash study on the appointment of Michel Barnier as Prime Minister. 5th September 2024.
Suivez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux :
