FRANCE – Further political obstructionism and a regrettable decision from Strasbourg
17 February 2026
In recent months, France has once again demonstrated that when it comes to freedom of choice regarding one’s own end of suffering and life, opponents of assisted dying will stop at nothing, no matter how embarrassing, to delay or even prevent legislation.
At the beginning of the year, and after numerous postponements, the French Senate debated the assisted dying bill approved by the National Assembly (Assemblée) in May 2025. In doing so, the Senate first stripped the law of its substance by stipulating, in the decisive article of the bill, only a right to the best possible pain relief instead of an “aide à mourir” (assistance in dying). The article of the bill which set out the requirements to get access to assisted dying was deleted entirely. This rendered the remaining content dead letter. The bill, thus disfigured, was finally rejected in its entirety on 28 January 2026.
This approach shows a blatant disregard for the will of the people, a specially appointed “Convention citoyenne” (Citizens’ Convention), the National Assembly and countless other bodies and individuals who have worked intensively on end-of-life issues in recent years and drawn up a balanced draft.
All is not lost
However, this does not mean the end of the bill: since 16 February, the bill has been discussed again in the Assemblée, based on a slightly modified version of the draft approved in May 2025; the final vote is scheduled for 24 February. After this, the bill will go back to the Senate, which is not expected to approve it. However, if there is further disagreement between the Assemblée and the Senate, the government has the option of giving the Assemblée the power to decide.
In any case, the bill must have gone through the entire process and been approved before the 2027 presidential elections. Time could be running out, even though optimistic voices expect it to be finalised by the summer of this year, and President Emmanuel Macron has reiterated that he wants to have assisted dying regulated during his term of office. A referendum is also still on the table.
For the time being, people living in France can only fulfil their wish for a self-determined end to their lives with risky and/or illegal methods at home, or by choosing the long and strenuous route of travelling abroad to die in a legal manner and with professional support.
“A. and others v. FRANCE”: The ECtHR decides not to decide
Going through the courts does not always produce the desired result either. On 5 February 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its decision in the case ‘A. and others v. FRANCE’, initiated by Dignitas. On 28 April 2023, a group of 31 individuals, represented by Maître Patrice Spinosi, attorney-at-law at the French Council of State and Court of Cassation, lodged complaints against France with the ECtHR in order to enforce freedom of choice regarding the end of one’s life and pave the way for the legalisation of assisted dying in France.
The applicants, invoking Articles 2, 3, 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), complained a violation of their right to life, their right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, their right to personal autonomy and their right to freedom of thought and conscience, resulting from the absence in French law of appropriate and sufficient guarantees concerning the right of each person to end their own life at a time of their choosing, consciously, freely and with dignity.
In September 2023, the ECtHR decided to communicate the complaints to the French government and thus continue proceedings. However, in their decision of 5 February 2026, the judges declared the complaints inadmissible on the grounds that in this matter, none of the 31 complainants could be considered victims of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the ECHR – which is an important prerequisite for the admissibility of an individual complaint to the ECtHR.
The fundamental issue remains
The judges’ interpretation of the term “victim” in this case was unusually narrow. With this “solution”, which is to be interpreted as predominantly formal, the ECtHR avoided the necessity to comment on the fundamental substantive aspects raised by the applicants regarding freedom of choice at the end of life, which also arise in other European countries.
This is most regrettable, but it does not alter the desire of the majority of the French population that a suffering person should have the opportunity to end their life in a legal, safe and professionally assisted manner in their own home. The right to a self-determined end of life is a freedom and a (human) right that must be protected like all other rights. In particular, no one from France should have to go to Switzerland for this.
With this negative decision, the fundamental issue will not simply disappear. In an ageing society, despite medical advances in alleviating suffering, and even with the best care, there is a growing number of people who want to decide on the end of their lives themselves, including having the option of choosing assisted dying. It remains unacceptable that seriously ill people have to resort to dangerous or even illegal means or undertake the long and arduous journey to Switzerland for assisted dying in order to end their suffering and life.
As far as the situation in France is concerned, we can only hope that, despite the delays and obstructionist tactics of recent years, politicians will this time succeed in passing a law that does not restrict the exercise of the right it is supposed to guarantee but offers suffering people a real option to choose assisted dying in their own country.
