The bill to legalise euthanasia in France is back for a final reading before being adopted by the deputies of the National Assembly. The rejection a few weeks ago of a bill amended by senators in a pro-life direction has brought back to the forefront one of the most progressive versions ever imagined on such a subject. One by one, safeguards are falling victim to dangerous parliamentary one-upmanship that is paving the way for a deadly future.
Last week in the finance committee, MPs began by rejecting outright a first set of 150 amendments intended to regulate ‘assisted dying.’ This initial rejection effectively deprived MPs of crucial discussions on the criteria for access to the scheme.
On Friday, February 20th, discussions focused on certain types of illnesses eligible for assisted dying. The courageous resistance of several MPs in attempting to exclude psychiatric patients, patients with neurodegenerative diseases, schizophrenia, or those with intellectual disabilities from the lethal scheme was unfortunately unsuccessful, with the rapporteur of the bill, Socialist MP Olivier Falorni, declaring himself opposed to “generalised exclusion lists.”
“Psychiatrists know that when you are depressed, you are not free to make your own choices, and that is the whole point of suicide prevention. How do we prevent suicide? We show the person who has attempted suicide that there is an alternative. Here, we are showing them that the alternative is suicide,” protested Philippe Juvin of the Les Républicains party.
A total of 42 MPs from all political parties are alarmed by the ongoing discussions and the systematic rejection—at a rate of 62 per hour on Friday—of multiple amendments intended to place limits on lethal acts. They published a collective op-ed in Le Figaro at the end of the day on Monday, February 23rd.
Their comments reveal their extreme concern about the anthropological change that is coming:
This is not a law on the end of life, but a law that trivialises induced death. The removal of the reference excluding psychological suffering alone further broadens the scope. A person will be able to request assistance in dying without being at the end of life. The measure will apply to chronic, progressive and sometimes long-term illnesses. This is not an exceptional law, but a law with very broad eligibility criteria.
The list of facilities that the law about to be voted on would allow is chilling. The final decision will be made by a single doctor; the second doctor’s opinion may be given remotely, without a physical examination of the patient. The reflection periods will be the shortest in the world. No prior independent validation is planned. Relatives will be excluded from the right of appeal. The act may be performed in a wide variety of locations, and minors may be present when the lethal substance is administered. Control will only take place after the fact, once the person has died.
The issue of ‘retrospective checks’ infuriated UDR MP Alexandre Allegret-Pilot:
Apparently, checking that the procedure is followed BEFORE administering a lethal substance (and not after death!) would be too much of a burden. It is true that once dead, the patient can hardly go back and prevent the act. … The French people are being openly mocked, and it is unbearable. This law and the manoeuvring surrounding it are the very embodiment of fanaticism.
The conditions for exercising the conscience clause for doctors will make it very difficult to comply with in practice. All healthcare establishments, including those with a ‘specific establishment project’ (i.e., most often religious institutions), will be required to organise the carrying out of lethal acts within their facilities. In other words, even if an individual practitioner can refuse to participate, the institution will have to guarantee that the killing can be done within its walls. Personal freedom will have to give way to institutional pressure. Death will infiltrate even the walls of retirement homes; no one will be able to find refuge within a structure that refuses medically induced death.
A hellish machine is now running at full speed, and nothing seems to be able to stop it. The Left continues to relentlessly block any form of parliamentary debate, arguing that “the French people are absolutely determined to win this new right.” Calls from the minister for relations with Parliament to “respect the complexity of the debate” have so far fallen on deaf ears.
Death for All at Full Speed
“Dance of the Dead” (1660 – c. 1687), a 24 × w 36 cm watercolor and ink on paper by Gesina ter Borch (1631–1690) after a design by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98–1543), located in Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
You may also like
The Myth of the Diaspora Vote
Why Transylvanian Hungarians do not decide Hungary’s elections.
Out Go the Hereditary Peers—In Comes the Political Class
Removing hereditary peers may make Britain’s constitution look more “modern.” But it also leaves the House of Lords increasingly shaped by political patronage.
Sánchez’s Communist Turn Is Devouring the Entire Far Left
The Spanish PM’s shift to the left could foreshadow the path that socialism—or the social-democratic Left—across the West will follow, or is already following.
The bill to legalise euthanasia in France is back for a final reading before being adopted by the deputies of the National Assembly. The rejection a few weeks ago of a bill amended by senators in a pro-life direction has brought back to the forefront one of the most progressive versions ever imagined on such a subject. One by one, safeguards are falling victim to dangerous parliamentary one-upmanship that is paving the way for a deadly future.
Last week in the finance committee, MPs began by rejecting outright a first set of 150 amendments intended to regulate ‘assisted dying.’ This initial rejection effectively deprived MPs of crucial discussions on the criteria for access to the scheme.
On Friday, February 20th, discussions focused on certain types of illnesses eligible for assisted dying. The courageous resistance of several MPs in attempting to exclude psychiatric patients, patients with neurodegenerative diseases, schizophrenia, or those with intellectual disabilities from the lethal scheme was unfortunately unsuccessful, with the rapporteur of the bill, Socialist MP Olivier Falorni, declaring himself opposed to “generalised exclusion lists.”
“Psychiatrists know that when you are depressed, you are not free to make your own choices, and that is the whole point of suicide prevention. How do we prevent suicide? We show the person who has attempted suicide that there is an alternative. Here, we are showing them that the alternative is suicide,” protested Philippe Juvin of the Les Républicains party.
A total of 42 MPs from all political parties are alarmed by the ongoing discussions and the systematic rejection—at a rate of 62 per hour on Friday—of multiple amendments intended to place limits on lethal acts. They published a collective op-ed in Le Figaro at the end of the day on Monday, February 23rd.
Their comments reveal their extreme concern about the anthropological change that is coming:
The list of facilities that the law about to be voted on would allow is chilling. The final decision will be made by a single doctor; the second doctor’s opinion may be given remotely, without a physical examination of the patient. The reflection periods will be the shortest in the world. No prior independent validation is planned. Relatives will be excluded from the right of appeal. The act may be performed in a wide variety of locations, and minors may be present when the lethal substance is administered. Control will only take place after the fact, once the person has died.
The issue of ‘retrospective checks’ infuriated UDR MP Alexandre Allegret-Pilot:
The conditions for exercising the conscience clause for doctors will make it very difficult to comply with in practice. All healthcare establishments, including those with a ‘specific establishment project’ (i.e., most often religious institutions), will be required to organise the carrying out of lethal acts within their facilities. In other words, even if an individual practitioner can refuse to participate, the institution will have to guarantee that the killing can be done within its walls. Personal freedom will have to give way to institutional pressure. Death will infiltrate even the walls of retirement homes; no one will be able to find refuge within a structure that refuses medically induced death.
A hellish machine is now running at full speed, and nothing seems to be able to stop it. The Left continues to relentlessly block any form of parliamentary debate, arguing that “the French people are absolutely determined to win this new right.” Calls from the minister for relations with Parliament to “respect the complexity of the debate” have so far fallen on deaf ears.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Saint-Denis, ‘City of Kings’, and the Great Replacement: A Case Study
Berlin’s Day of Intimidation
During Lent, Fasts of Crescent and Cross Are Not the Same