During the final stage prior to promulgation which occurred on 18th August, the Constitutional Counsel validated the entire law adopted by the National Assembly on 15th July. It did however express three reservations which the application decrees will have to abide by. The injustice of the principle of euthanasia, the administration of death, remains, as do the many flaws widely denounced during the debates.
The submissions received subsequent to the vote on15th July by the National Assembly
The President of the Senate, a group of senators, two groups of MPs (for a group of MPs, and for the RN party), as well as the Prime Minister appealed to the Constitutional Counsel a very few days after the final vote, in accordance with their prerogatives under article 61 of the Constitution.
The appeal by the Prime Minister includes a most unusual aspect. Indeed, it was his own government which took part in all the debates in 2026 which resulted in the final vote. It was also the decision by the government which granted the final vote to the National Assembly following the persistent disagreement between the National Assembly and the Senate.
When considered all together, the appeals detail all the remarks and doubts on the constitutionality of articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and18.
Some senators also questioned the impartiality of two members of the Counsel, since they had previously made clear their support for euthanasia when they were MPs or senators.
The appeals converged on the main grievances against the text of the law adopted:
- The principle of safeguarding human dignity, in particular for the vulnerable, the aged, the sick or those suffering from handicap.
- The freedom of conscience and the principle of equality (for example the absence of a conscience clause for pharmacists, the heads of care establishments etc.).
- The principle of accessibility and intelligibility of the law (due for example to the imprecise wording and deceptive expressions such as "assistance in dying").
- The freedom of undertaking and of association, being jeopardised by the legislator's refusal to grant a clause for Establishments enabling Institutions to refuse to practice euthanasia on their premises.
- The respect for the free and enlightened will of the patient, in view of the very short cooling off period which may result in a euthanasia and the broad definition of the criteria to be applied to patients liable to apply for assisted suicide.
The appeals also included more legalistic considerations (impossibility for third parties to appeal against a decision in favour of assisted suicide, the absence of any overview by a judge in a process which decides on the life or death of a person.).
MP Patrick Hetzel, in one of the appeals, underlined in conclusion:
"The text which is being submitted to you raises totally unheard-of constitutionality questions, in that it allows any adult person normally resident in France or of French nationality, meeting the criteria, which are often inadequate or applied randomly, listed under article 4 to obtain the "right to die" on request, without any oversight by a judge and following a most incomplete medical assessment".
The replies by the Constitutional Counsel
The decision issued on 14th August validates without change the articles submitted for its consideration, as well as the overall text of the law. In the wording of its response, the Counsel considers that it " does not hold an overall power of assessment and decision of the same nature as that of Parliament", thus declining any intervention on its part on so-called societal matters. Article by article, all the grievances were rejected.
In many cases, the decision quotes the preamble to the1946 Constitution:
"The safeguard of human dignity against any form of slavery and degradation is among such rights and constitutes a constitutional principle".
Nevertheless, the protection of such dignity is no better guaranteed following the appeals to the Constitutional Counsel. For example, there is still a single doctor who considers the request for administered death, with no possibility for next of kin to take part in the debate prior to the decision. Also, only those people whose discernment is severely affected are disqualified from the process. The procedure established by the text does not require any opinion by a mental health specialist.
The Counsel reservations
The Counsel did however express three reservations which must be incorporated into the application decrees.
- The conscience clause, restricted in the law to doctors and nurses only, is to be extended to cover pharmacists. "Unless misunderstanding the freedom of conscience guaranteed by article 10 of the 1789 Declaration, pharmacists exercising their profession through pharmacy for internal use or as dispensary pharmacy, as mentioned in article L. 1111-12-6 of the public health code cannot be obliged to participate in the procedure".
- An Establishment clause is granted to allow Institutions which so desire, not to practice assisted suicide on their premises: " Unless misunderstanding the constitutional requirements resulting from the freedom of establishment and the freedom of association, the provisions in question cannot go against the head of a private establishment who refuses that an assistance in dying procedure can take place on his/her premises if such a procedure is manifestly contrary to the statutory missions or the aims of the establishment. Such a refusal may only be accepted when other establishments are able to meet local needs." The refusal by an Establishment is therefore possible, subject to the condition that other local Establishments can handle the request for administered death. Experience in other states (Belgium, Canada, Switzerland) unfortunately has shown that this clause is easily threatened.
- Finally, concerning protected adults, the Counsel asks that the deciding doctor "must consider" the remarks by the guardian. What exactly is meant by the term "consider" is not made clear. On this question also, the answer is ill-defined.
What next?
The law is now fully applicable. The application decrees are being prepared in the ministries. They may however be challenged through the administrative jurisdictions.
Adopted through a marginal majority, in disagreement with the Senate, the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia is a threat against the intrinsic dignity of the most vulnerable. By creating a category of person eligible for administered death, the legislator has also relinquished the universal prevention of suicide. A truly serious and unjust decision.