FRANCE – Another chapter in a sad political spectacle
18 May 2026
The political wrangling over “aide à mourir” (assisted dying) in France is and remains a sad spectacle. From May 11 to 12, 2026, the French Senate considered the bills on palliative care and “aide à mourir” for the second time. While the bill on palliative care remained uncontested, a majority of the Senate, on the very first day of the debate, rejected article 2 of the assisted dying bill—the one which defined the procedure for “aide à mourir” as well as the situations in which it would apply. With this manoeuvre, the bill was effectively gutted, just as it had been the first time, and was ultimately rejected entirely.
On February 25, 2026, the National Assembly had also voted for the second time on the bills regarding palliative care and “aide à mourir.” The improvement and further development of palliative care were uncontested there as well. The proposal on “aide à mourir” was also adopted, by a vote of 299 to 226, and thus sent back to the Senate.
Despite the Senate’s renewed rejection of the assisted dying bill, there is still a chance that it will become law: final approval by the Senate is not mandatory in France. This, because the government can put an end to the back-and-forth after two rounds and give the National Assembly final decision-making authority.
Ideally, the law would be in place by the summer of 2026. Whether that is still feasible is more than questionable. The possibility of a referendum has not yet been completely ruled out either. This would take additional time though. With or without a referendum, the bill will have to complete the legislative process and be approved by the time of the 2027 presidential election.
The opponents’ deliberate delaying tactics
Behind the undignified tug-of-war between the Senate and the National Assembly lie concrete political interests. Senator Bruno Retailleau, leader of the conservative Republicans and a “mastermind” behind this bizarre power struggle, intends to run in the 2027 presidential election. Assisted dying, already an emotionally charged topic in political discourse, is for some an ideal arena to exploit personal sensitivities under the guise of moralizing paternalism and presumptuous prerogative of interpretation over what constitutes a dignified end of life – and to effectively undermine a socially significant promise made by President Emmanuel Macron in his last presidential election campaign.
These manoeuvres suit conservative religious circles. They easily get carried away by their fear of people’s self-determined and self-responsible decisions, and they believe it is better to keep everything as it is than handing over control on end-of-life decisions to the affected individuals themselves and to give them the tools to implement these decisions in a way that aligns with their personal ideas. They prefer to cling to the narrative of an all-powerful palliative care system – and, indeed, to the will of a God who alone can decide whose life ends, and when.
Those affected directly are the ones who suffer
Ironically, it is precisely those who have no say in political debates who pay the price for this hypocritical and fear-driven behaviour: competent adults whom the state prohibits from ending their lives safely and with professional assistance when their suffering has become unbearable for them.
No one wants to die if they see a way to continue living that is personally acceptable to them. What is personally acceptable is decided neither by doctors, the state, society, nor God, but by the person themselves, with full knowledge of their alternatives and after a personal, well-considered weighing-up of options.
No one is forced to end their life. And no one is forced to accompany another person in ending their life. However, prohibiting this path from the outset is the opposite of compassion and care, even though opponents of assisted dying readily and frequently claim these terms for themselves, and in doing so, not least, conjure up a non-existent contradiction between palliative care and voluntary assisted dying.
France in “good” company
France is by far not the only country where conservative and religious forces oppose the will of the people by any means, sparing no effort in the process. This discrepancy is particularly evident when it comes to issues involving existential questions of life and death. Taxpayer-funded elected officials spend weeks and months, under the guise of philosophy, ethics, and morality, downplaying the suffering many people are experiencing and dismissing it as a marginal issue.
Discussions evolve around doctors, caregivers, the state’s duty to protect, and more. While it is important to define these roles, those directly affected are, at best, given a voice in the media. In the political context, they are rarely heard. All too often, they are assigned the role of allegedly vulnerable individuals who are incapable of making clear decisions and who must be prevented from choosing “against life.”
And finally, fears are stoked that legalizing assisted dying would open the floodgates to pressure and abuse – a completely unsubstantiated claim.
Technical tactics are employed to avoid making a decision. Relevant bills are blocked by countless proposed amendments – as was just recently the case also in the United Kingdom –, and the bill then disappears from the agenda due to lack of time.
“Reculer pour mieux sauter”
Of course, a new initiative can be launched in the next legislative term. The clock will then be reset to zero, and countless committees, hearings, and meetings will once again be convened to explain this complex issue to the political decision-makers – many of whom will likely be new by then – so that they can form a well-considered and well-informed opinion.
Opponents of assisted dying from conservative religious circles will continue to proceed according to their tried-and-true pattern. They are financially powerful and well-connected politically, economically, and internationally. They wield influence in professional associations and the healthcare sector – and not least in the academic world –, coordinating their activities and doing everything in their power to preserve their morally grounded presumptuous prerogative of interpretation over life and death while simultaneously retaining a vital source of income: the elderly, the ill, and those suffering.
The bitter reality of suffering people will persist as long as the state denies them the option to end their suffering and life at home, in a legal, self-determined and safe manner, and with professional support. Dignitas, along with organizations in France and elsewhere in the world, continues to advocate for this “last human right” – in the spirit of the association’s founder, Ludwig A. Minelli, passed away in 2025, who used to say: “Reculer pour mieux sauter”1.
1 step back to make a better leap
Further articles on the topic: https://dignitas.ch/en/tag/france/
