The National Assembly of France approved, on February 25, in second reading, the bill that legalizes euthanasia and assisted suicide under the denomination of “right to assistance in dying.” The text was supported by 299 deputies against 226 votes against—27 more than in the previous vote—and will now have to be examined again by the Senate, which had already rejected it in January.
The initiative introduces into the French legal system the possibility of administering lethal medications to patients who request it under certain conditions. Although its promoters present it as an expansion of individual rights, the debate has highlighted a deep political, ethical, and social fracture regarding the protection of life in its final stage.
Read also: France is processing an euthanasia law with unprecedented scope in Europe
Self-administration as a formal guarantee
According to reports from the media RFI, one of the most discussed points was the method of administering the lethal product. Finally, the text establishes that it will be the patient themselves who must self-administer the substance, unless they are physically incapacitated, in which case a doctor or nurse may intervene.
The defenders of this formula argue that self-administration allows verifying until the last moment the free and informed will of the applicant. However, the norm legally consolidates the possibility of deliberately causing death, something that until now remained prohibited in the country.
During the processing, the option had been opened for the patient to freely choose the method, but the Assembly revoked that provision and returned to the initial scheme.
Psychological suffering excluded as the sole cause
Another key aspect was the definition of the suffering that enables access to assisted death. In its final version, the text specifies that psychological suffering on its own will not allow one to avail of this right.
The Government defended this clarification to avoid situations of transient vulnerability leading to irreversible decisions. Nevertheless, several deputies criticized the establishment of a hierarchy between types of suffering, which reveals the difficulty of legally objectifying a deeply human and subjective reality.
Palliative care approved unanimously
In parallel, the Assembly unanimously approved a second bill aimed at expanding access to palliative care. This consensus contrasts with the division generated by the legalization of euthanasia.
From critical sectors, the contradiction has been pointed out of simultaneously promoting the strengthening of palliative care—oriented toward alleviating suffering without causing death—and the creation of a right to receive a lethal substance. For the Catholic Church, palliative care constitutes the authentically human response to pain and the fragility of the end of life.
Mobilization of the Church in France
In the months prior to the vote, the Catholic Church in France intensified its call to defend life. The Episcopal Conference stated that palliative care is “the only adequate response” to difficult end-of-life situations and warned that legalizing euthanasia “would profoundly change the nature of our social pact.”
Aciprensa recalled that the bishops called for a national day of prayer and fasting on February 20. The Bishop of Bayonne, Mons. Marc Aillet, alerted to the “extreme gravity” of the project and the “terrible consequences” that its adoption could entail.
Voices of criticism also arose from the civil sphere. Ludovine de la Rochère, president of the Union of Families and the La Manif pour Tous movement, denounced what she called “ideological extremism” and warned that the law is “scandalous and dangerous.” “Living with dignity,” she affirmed, requires strengthening accompaniment and solidarity, not institutionalizing provoked death.
An open debate on dignity and the role of the State
With this second approval in the National Assembly, the bill returns to the Senate. The increase in votes against compared to the first reading reflects that the controversy has not dissipated.
The discussion in France transcends the strictly health-related sphere. At stake is the very conception of human dignity and the role of the State in the face of vulnerable life. For the Christian tradition, dignity does not depend on autonomy or the degree of suffering, but on the intrinsic value of every human life, which must be accompanied and protected until its natural end.
The debate, far from closing, now enters a new parliamentary phase in a country that faces a decision with profound anthropological and moral implications.