The Permanent Council of the Episcopal Conference published on January 14, 2026 a tribune that arrives with a clear intention: to halt the friendly narrative with which it is intended to pave the way in the Senate for an alleged “right to assisted dying”. The bishops warn that behind the euphemism, there is a change of civilization. And they summarize it with a phrase that leaves no escape: one does not care for life by giving death.
The text points to the core of the debate. It is not just a healthcare reform, nor a “new right” that completes the system. It is, they say, a moral engineering operation that changes names to anesthetize consciences. Calling euthanasia or assisted suicide a “act of care” clarifies nothing; it confuses, erases boundaries and normalizes the State presenting provoked death as a legitimate way out in the face of suffering.
A society that offers death because it does not guarantee care
The bishops denounce that if in France people die badly, it is not due to a lack of an authorized lethal injection, but to the real inequality in access to palliative care, to existing laws applied halfway and to a support network that does not reach everyone. In that framework, the question is uncomfortable but logical: with what authority is death offered as an option when pain relief, human presence and integral care are not guaranteed?
They also recall that for more than twenty-five years France had maintained a coherent line: neither therapeutic obstinacy nor provoked death. The current norms, including the Claeys-Leonetti law, have allowed tools such as deep and continuous sedation to alleviate suffering, without turning the doctor into an executioner. For the episcopate, the legislative turn breaks that logic and opens a door that is then difficult to close.
Dignity and freedom: words used as a pretext
The bishops reject that dignity depends on autonomy, productivity or the appearance of “useful life”. If dignity is measured by performance standards, the terminally ill or the disabled is exposed to an implicit conclusion: “you are superfluous”.
They also question the idea of freedom presented as a pure decision without conditions. Real freedom, they recall, is deformed when there is pain, fear, loneliness or social pressure. And here lies the underlying risk: that the “right” becomes an expectation. That the vulnerable feels they must choose death so as not to be an emotional or economic burden.
Fraternity is not eliminating the one who suffers
The text strikes another entrenched idea: presenting the law as “fraternal”. For the bishops, it is the opposite. Fraternity does not consist of facilitating a lethal substance nor of pushing healthcare workers to act against their conscience. It consists of not abandoning, of sustaining, of accompanying and of truly investing in palliatives, training, support for caregivers and networks against loneliness.
A vote that commits the whole society
The episcopate asks legislators to assume the magnitude of the step they are about to take. It is not about “limit cases” nor theoretical debates: it affects families, doctors and patients, and can deteriorate the bond of trust between the caregiver and the cared-for. Life, they argue, is not an ideological cause managed with slogans; it is a mystery that demands humility and concrete humanity, especially when it costs the most.