how the lack of political consensus has hardened the debate on assisted dying
But what happened in the Senate around the end of life law? On January 28, the upper house rejected the bill aimed at establishing a right to “assisted dying”. Rapporteur of the text at the Luxembourg Palace, opposed to the legalization of euthanasia, Christine Bonfanti-Dossat says: “We reworked the text to set drastic conditions, and thus arrive at what seemed the least bad to us.”
As a result, this revised version united opposing opinions against it: some of the senators considered that this reinforced framework was too restrictive, another refused any opening towards assistance in dying.
A turbulent legislative journey
“This rejection has a concrete consequence,” underlines constitutional expert Denis Baranger: “the deputies are examining today at second reading the same text as the one they adopted at the end of November.” Debates therefore resume around a proposal which immediately provides for broad conditions of access to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Ironically, the senators opposed to assisted dying who voted against ultimately favor its adoption, in terms that they do not control.
Nor can they expect the text to get bogged down in the twists and turns of parliamentary procedure: barely rejected by the Senate, the law was immediately submitted for second reading to the Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly. It must then be studied by all deputies from February 16, for a vote scheduled for February 24.
Because some in the presidential camp have made the adoption of the law a priority. “We will, finally, complete the legislative work on the question of the end of life,” assured Emmanuel Macron in his wishes to the French for 2026. “It is an expected text and I will do everything so that it can be definitively adopted before the summer,” added Yaël Braun-Pivet, president of the National Assembly, on January 22.
Why this frantic pace? Christine Bonfanti-Dossat puts forward an explanation: “The President wants a societal law for his second term, as François Hollande had with marriage for all.” Political scientist, also opposed to the legalization of euthanasia, Dominique Reynié expresses himself in the same terms: “It will be a marker of macronism.”
Campaign promise
On the side of the supporters of the text, the reading is of course different. First of all, we remind you, this is a campaign commitment from Emmanuel Macron for the 2022 presidential election. In addition, assures Yaël Braun-Pivet, “assisted dying meets a strong expectation of the French”. Several surveys, such as the one carried out in May 2024 by Ifop for the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD) seem to attest to this.
To the question: “In your opinion, should French law authorize doctors to end, without suffering, the lives of people suffering from unbearable and incurable illnesses if they request it?”, 92% of French people responded favorably. A formulation “which pushes us to say yes”, denounces Dominique Reynié, himself pilot of a study for Catholic Family Associations whose results, based on other questions, are much more mixed.
A text that divides up to the top of the state
Starting from their own text, the deputies seem to be moving towards a maximalist version. “All the barriers and amendments for protection are rejected en bloc by the commission,” Claire Fourcade, doctor and former president of the French Society for Support and Palliative Care, expressed emotion on the X network. Has history already been written?
“There is a slow maturation on the question and the rejection by the Senate could allow those who thought the debate closed to consider openings,” wants to believe Dominique Reynié. Since the Luxembourg Palace vote, governmental unity seems to be crumbling. If Laurent Panifous, responsible for relations with Parliament, brushed aside the differences between the chambers by recalling that the deputies will have “the last word”, his colleague in the budget, Amélie de Montchalin, considered that there was “no emergency”. As for the government spokesperson, Maud Bregeon, she expressed her “big doubts”, fearing that “Pandora’s box” had been opened.
