I would have liked to have been able to support the bill just passed by the National Assembly on end-of-life conditions and the right to assisted dying. But I cannot.
I would have liked to because nothing would be more natural than to allow everyone, in complete freedom, to end their life as they see fit and to be accompanied if they do not know how or are unable to do so themselves in a gentle manner. And because, when certain pains are irremediably unbearable, I suppose it is legitimate to want to end them. Even if no one knows how they will react when and if they are ever confronted with this situation, it is understandable that a law should grant this right to everyone. And the means to exercise it. That was the laudable intention of this text.
However, I cannot support it as it stands, for at least one reason: there is no guarantee, in the text as it was voted on in the first reading, and despite all the debates that preceded it and the indisputable integrity of its proponents, that France will not experience the same developments as those that seem to be emerging in other countries where such a law exists, particularly in Canada and the Netherlands, where this option seems to be used at present mainly by the poorest and most vulnerable people.
One might have thought that the evolution would have been different, and that the most privileged social classes, the most free of all, would have wanted to be the first to take advantage of this new freedom. In reality, this is not the case:
on the contrary, when you are poor, and even more so when you are poor and alone, and especially when you do not have a well-equipped center nearby to provide quality palliative care, you may want to end your life as quickly as possible. Even more so when you are not only poor, but also disabled or mentally different, you may even be pressured to ask to die by those around you, whether family or friends, who may find it beneficial, at least psychologically. Furthermore, in the bill as passed by the National Assembly, it is considered reprehensible to try to convince someone not to end their life, whereas, conversely, “incitement to suicide” is punishable under Article 223 of the Penal Code only if and when the act is carried out.
All of this leads me to be somewhat suspicious of the philosophy and dynamics of such a reform. There is a risk that, in a few decades, if not a few years, it could evolve into the more or less explicit social organization of euthanasia for the mentally ill, disabled, vulnerable, or destitute, for reasons of family embarrassment or social cost. Everything I have predicted and denounced as a nightmare for decades would then be coming true.
No one wants that, of course. But just because it is not anyone’s intention does not mean that it will not one day become the inevitable consequence of a poorly drafted, poorly defined law, despite decades of debate, reports, and reflection.
Everyone wants to be able to receive palliative care. Everyone wants to be able to have a happy and peaceful end of life. No one wants society to push them to end their life.
More generally, this leads to a reflection: a reform project, which may seem justified in itself, is not justified if the consequences of its implementation are to worsen the plight of the most vulnerable. We saw this very recently with the ZFE law, which, with the very laudable aim of improving air quality in city centers, failed to protect the most vulnerable, those living in the suburbs, from the territorial segregation that would be imposed on them by their inability to afford less polluting vehicles. We have also seen this with the environmental policy aimed at reducing CO2 emissions by increasing taxes on fossil fuels, which led to the yellow vest revolt.
Of course, none of this should be an obstacle to moving towards a more environmentally friendly society, ensuring the best conditions for the end of life, or modernizing school curricula. Provided, here as elsewhere, careful consideration is given in advance to how any reform, once implemented, will be experienced by the various social classes, and that everything is done to ensure that it does not lead, through an unintended indirect effect, to the crushing of the weakest.
Image: Death and life by Gustav Klimt