{"id":11863,"date":"2026-07-27T14:13:36","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T12:13:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/?post_type=news&p=11863"},"modified":"2026-07-27T16:51:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T14:51:25","slug":"france-assisted-dying-law-adopted-will-its-implementation-also-succeed","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/en\/news\/france-assisted-dying-law-adopted-will-its-implementation-also-succeed\/","title":{"rendered":"FRANCE \u2013 Assisted dying law adopted: Will its implementation also succeed?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On 15 July 2026, the French National Assembly approved the \u201cLoi relative au droit \u00e0 l\u2019aide \u00e0 mourir<\/a>\u201d (\u201cLaw on the Right to Assistance in Dying\u201d) by 291 votes in favour, 241 against, and 29 abstentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law is intended to give people in France access to assistance in dying under strict conditions. The main requirements for receiving assistance are: (1)\u00a0a serious and incurable illness which is life-threatening and at an advanced or terminal stage; (2)\u00a0the person\u2019s firm and explicit wish to end their suffering and life; and (3)\u00a0approval by medical doctors. Additional requirements include (4)\u00a0being an adult, (5)\u00a0having mental capacity, and (6) French citizenship or being a permanent resident of France. Persons whose sole underlying illness is a psychiatric condition are excluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law is based on the principle that the person self-administers a lethal substance (i.e. assisted suicide). In exceptional cases, if the person is physically unable to do so, the substance may be administered by a physician or another health care professional. There is a conscientious objection clause for health care professionals to opt out of participating in assisted dying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As he had announced, French Prime Minister S\u00e9bastien Lecornu referred the law to the Constitutional Council for review after its adoption. He argued that it must be ensured that the law preserves the dignity of those concerned and that the safeguards provided are sufficient to guarantee protection consistent with constitutional and human rights requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Linking eligibility to life expectancy is misguided compassion<\/strong>
This law\u2019s content became politically acceptable only after years of negotiations and compromises. One of these compromises, which may prove problematic, is the requirement that the person suffer from a serious and incurable illness which is life-threatening and at an advanced or terminal stage. Even physicians know that the course of an illness cannot be predicted reliably. More importantly, this requirement automatically excludes many people from access to professional assistance in dying, even when they suffer from an incurable condition that has become unbearable for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same applies to people living with multiple long-term, chronic and irreversible conditions which so severely diminish their quality of life that they wish to have the option of ending their lives safely and autonomously once their threshold of tolerance has been reached \u2013 regardless of whether they would use the option within a few months, in several years, or perhaps never at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People do not like having no options. It is also well established that just knowing about a real option can alleviate suffering and improve perceived quality of life. By contrast, people who are denied freedom of choice may experience an increase in emotional distress. For this reason alone, the restriction represents a form of misguided compassion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leave the decision to those directly concerned<\/strong>
The widespread claim by opponents of assistance in dying \u2013 which is that doing away with a life-expectancy criterion would devalue the lives of ill people and open the door to abuse because they would feel pressured to die \u201cbefore their time\u201d \u2013 is unfounded. Competent adults do not need others to dictate which path they may choose, and certainly not how and when they should shape the end of their lives. Who, if not the person concerned, is in a position to judge how they feel and whether a particular course of action is personally acceptable to them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The medical professionals involved in the assisted dying procedure naturally bear a professional responsibility. They are not moral judges however, but \u2013 if they so choose \u2013 they are companions on an individual journey. It is entirely sufficient to have a process in which the person\u2019s life history, medical situation, reasons for requesting assistance in dying, and the stable nature of that wish are carefully examined, whilst alternatives for alleviating suffering are discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The goal has not yet been reached<\/strong>
The fact that the assisted dying bill ultimately became law despite numerous delays and obstruction attempts in the Senate and elsewhere is encouraging. It is not, however, a reason for euphoria. What matters now is how quickly the implementing regulations can be adopted. For implementation \u2013 such as ensuring the availability and accessibility of information for those concerned, training the professionals involved, and clearly defining practical procedures and responsibilities \u2013 it may also be useful to learn from the experience of other countries that have already enacted assistance in dying legislation in recent years. These include Spain<\/a> as well as several Australian and U.S. states, even though their laws and healthcare systems differ from those of France.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A meaningful assessment of the law\u2019s impact will only be possible in a few years\u2019 time. The right and practical possibility for people in France to access assistance in dying at home are now within reach, but they are not yet secured. Opponents of assistance in dying will continue to do everything possible to delay and complicate the implementation of the law. Furthermore, it remains highly uncertain what political direction France will take after next year\u2019s presidential election. In the worst-case scenario, the law could remain little more than a dead letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

___<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further articles on France can be found here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 15 July 2026, the French National Assembly approved the \u201cLoi relative au droit \u00e0 l\u2019aide \u00e0 mourir\u201d (\u201cLaw on the Right to Assistance in Dying\u201d) by 291 votes in favour, 241 against, and 29 abstentions. The law is intended to give people in France access to assistance in dying under strict conditions. The main […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","tags":[534,541],"class_list":["post-11863","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry","tag-country-update","tag-france"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/11863","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dignitas.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}